Rob Sahr on the Administration’s Aggressive Approach to Bayh-Dole Compliance
Cross-Border Patent Assignment--How Can Foreigners Obtain Patent Assignments from Chinese Patentees?
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Five Popular Misconceptions about Patents
Pepper Hamilton Higher Education "In Brief" Webinar Series: Intellectual Property Basics - What Every Higher Education Administrator Needs To Know
6 Key Takeaways | Protect Your Business's Foundation and Future with a Strong Internal Patent System
IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
IP|Trend: Starting Up Your Protection of Intellectual Property
The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that belated statements are not relevant but litigation funding...more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more
In the biotechnology and chemical spaces, genus claims are often sought by patent applicants to protect not only a specific product of interest, but also as a means to protect against others making related products that...more
Takeaways - - Expired patents may be eligible for reexamination. - Owner’s options during reexamination of an expired patent are severely limited. Similar to reexamination practice, which has long allowed reexamination...more
Abuse of Process and/or Sanctions – 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 - Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC, IPR2021-00847, IPR2021-00850, IPR2021-00854, IPR2021-00857 & IPR2021-00860 - Decision...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more
Inter partes activity involving design patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was relatively low in 2024. The PTAB rendered just two inter partes decisions involving design patents: Next Step Group, Inc. v....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a patent owner’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal following the Federal Circuit’s decision to vacate and remand the case to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board but...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: USPTO Issues Final Rules on PTAB Procedure - The U.S. Patent and...more
The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. The...more
On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more
On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal,...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
On July 9, 2024, Director Vidal reversed and remanded a denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) relating to three Spin Master patents. See Prime Time Toys LLC v. Spin Master, Inc., IPR Nos. 2023-01339, 2023-01348,...more
On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071,...more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more
On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more
On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues. The Notice addresses stakeholder feedback responsive to the...more
On April 19, 2024, the USPTO published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that followed its April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The proposed rules package, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently dismissed and terminated inter partes review challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 patent”). Netflix, Inc. v. Owner, IPR2022-01568, Paper 29 (PTAB March...more
It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more
Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 2022-1756 (Fed. Cir. (S.D.N.Y.) Mar. 5, 2024). Opinion by Moore, joined by Stoll and Cunningham. IBM owns two patents that generally relate to improvements in...more
The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...more