News & Analysis as of

Patent Ownership Patent Applications Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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

Recent Updates at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Recent changes at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have brought uncertainty to inter partes review and post-grant review practitioners before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These procedural and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Patent Without a Pulse: Provisional Rights Don’t Outlive the Patent

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a patent applicant seeking provisional rights on a patent that would issue only after it had already expired, finding that the applicant lacked the...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – March 2025

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

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

PTAB Year in Review – PTAB Trends in 2024: Challenges to Genus Claims

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

Jones Day

USPTO Launches Significant Patent Fee Increases

Jones Day on

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") raised patent fees and introduced new surcharges....more

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

PTAB Finds Another Patent Fails to Pass Muster Under 101

At the end of October, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a final written decision in PGR2023-00023, finding all claims of a patent owned by Halliburton Energy Services unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more

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

Historical Development of Substantial New Question contrasted with the new Section 325(d) Criteria

Ex parte reexamination proceedings have been available for over 40 years. The reexamination statutes, Public Law 96-517 of July 1, 1981 (also known as the Bayh-Dole Act), included 35 U.S.C. § 303, which codified, in part,...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IPR Grounds Doomed for Failure to Show Patent Reference Was Supported by Disclosures in Priority Application

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review, in part because the petitioner failed to show that a key reference qualified as prior art. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner was required to...more

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

The Reissue Recapture Doctrine

One of the advantages of filing a reissue application within two years of the original patent’s grant is the ability to seek broader claims. More often than not, however, a broadening Reissue will be rejected by the CRU...more

Jones Day

Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

Jones Day on

In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...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

Institution Denied Based On Written Description in “Alternative Embodiments”

Jones Day on

On September 21, 2023, the PTAB denied United Services Automobile Association’s petition to institute inter partes review of Auto Telematics’s U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487.  IPR2023-00519, Paper 10....more

Fenwick & West LLP

USPTO Doubles Down on Inapplicability of Dynamic Drinkware to AIA Cases in Precedential PTAB Decision

Fenwick & West LLP on

What You Need to Know The USPTO has reiterated its position that Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. does not apply to patents and patent applications that fall under the America Invents Act (AIA) by designating...more

Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC

Use Open Families to Combat Design-Arounds

A perennial challenge in patenting is to both cover your product and block design-arounds. It is understandably frustrating to incur the expense and disclosure requirements of the patent process only to find that a...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

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

Quarles & Brady LLP

In re SurgiSil : Much More than a Cosmetic Change to Design Patent Law

Quarles & Brady LLP on

A recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has fundamentally altered the law on prior art anticipation for design patent applications. In this decision, captioned In re: SurgiSil, L.L.P....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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Broad Files Motion Opposing CVC's Motion to Subpoena Witnesses

At the end of October, in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of...more

Lowndes

Inventors Rights Act Could Significantly Change Patent Ownership Strategy

Lowndes on

A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday, December 18, 2019 could significantly affect strategies for patent ownership in the United States. The Inventors Rights Act (H.R. 5478), which is sponsored by...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Intellectual Property Law Year in Review - March 2019

McDermott Will & Emery on

In the continuously evolving world of intellectual property law, 2018 was another milestone year. The US Supreme Court and Federal Circuit continued to define key aspects of intellectual property (IP) law including: •...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Holding of No Interference in Fact in CRISPR Interference, Leaving Both Sides Free to License Their...

On September 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determining that there was no interference in fact between the University of California’s (“UC”) U.S. Patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases - June 2018 #3

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mark A. Barry, Appeal Nos. 2017-1169, -1170 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2018) - The Court affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part a PTAB decision finding that petitioner Medtronic, Inc. had failed to prove that...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Considerations for Canna-Patent Owners and Applicants in Light of Insys Development Co. v. GW Pharma Ltd.

For companies in the cannabis industry seeking to protect their innovations, patent protection is typically available for cannabis-related inventions (including the plant itself), just like it is for any other invention—they...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2121, -2208, -2235 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from a jury trial, the Federal Circuit addressed numerous issues...more

34 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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