News & Analysis as of

Patent Ownership Obviousness

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Cellect and Allergan: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) in Reexamination and Reissue

Takeaways: 1. ODP in reexamination and reissue remains unpredictable despite Allergan 2. Patent Owners should carefully review ODP rejections to ensure they are proper Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a legal...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Permits Submission of Evidence Midstream to Bolster Public Accessibility of References Despite Objections

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted a petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information, over patent owner’s objections, concerning the public availability of references that were relied upon to support grounds...more

Jones Day

Director Provides Reminders For Obviousness Analysis

Jones Day on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB MTA Pilot Program to the Rescue

On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | May 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more

Jones Day

Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

Jones Day on

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - May 2024

SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Cancer Drugs: Strategies For Patenting Antibody-Drug Conjugate Inventions

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) is a promising class of cancer treatments with accelerating U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and rapidly growing market size as discussed in previous articles in this series. This...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Rules on Inventor-as-Lexicographer Definitions and the Proper Scope of Reply and Sur-Reply Briefing Following...

ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): In re Cellect, LLC, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023)...

Cellect owned four patents with claims that were found unpatentable by the PTAB in ex parte reexaminations for obviousness-type double patenting. The patents were granted Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for the Office’s delay...more

Jones Day

Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates Matter

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that the disputed claims regarding transferring digital content were not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) after determining that the prior art cited by the...more

Jones Day

Expectation of Success Analysis Need Not Be Separate

Jones Day on

In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Some Touch Up Needed: The Federal Circuit Partially Confirms the PTAB’s View of Analogous Art

In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit partially signed off on Apple’s win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a number of patents owned by Corephotonics relating to dual-aperture...more

Jones Day

Limitations Absent from a Notice of Allowability May be Material

Jones Day on

On August 24, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of inter partes review in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. and remanded the case for further proceedings. ...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Patentee’s Own Clinical Trial Renders Unpatentable Patent Claims Directed to Antibody Treatment

In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2023

Knobbe Martens on

IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response - In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Mind Your Ps and Qs, and Your PTAs Too

Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more

Knobbe Martens

Weighty Considerations: Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness

Knobbe Martens on

Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, v. Brunswick Corp. Before Moore, Lourie, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board must consider the combined weight of multiple objective...more

Knobbe Martens

IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response

Knobbe Martens on

AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Analogous Art Must Be Compared to the Challenged Patent

Knobbe Martens on

In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Bad Connection: Claim Construction Argument without Explanation Given No Weight

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) obviousness decision after finding that the patent owner failed to explain how its cited extrinsic evidence supported its proposed...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Delayed Disclaimer: Patent Owner Arguments Made during IPR Not a Claim Limiting Disclaimer in That Proceeding

McDermott Will & Emery on

Repeating a conclusion from an earlier non-precedential opinion in VirnetX, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) need not accept a patent owner’s arguments as a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - November 2022 #3

American National Manufacturing Inc. v. Sleep Number Corporation, Appeal Nos. 2021-1321, -1323, -1379, -1382 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) - In an appeal from inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Joint inventorship has been called "one of the muddiest concepts in the muddy metaphysics of patent law" because the "exact parameters of what constitutes joint inventorship are quite difficult to define." Mueller Brass Co....more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

In Qualcomm v. Intel, Federal Circuit Defends Procedural Rights Before the PTAB

Last month, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions that...more

64 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide