Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed six PTAB decisions that held unpatentable as obvious 79 claims of three Cytiva Bioprocess (“Cytiva”) challenged patents and reversed the PTAB decision upholding four claims....more
A recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on expert declarations in their inter partes reviews (“IPR”). On August 24, 2022, the...more
During an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Ingenico, the PTAB found certain claims from three patents held by IOEngine to be unpatentable. The patents at issue are directed to secure communications for portable devices...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
The new year has brought a wave of activity for EYLEA® (aflibercept) biosimilars. Following up on our previous report (EYLEA® (aflibercept) and Soliris® (eculizumab) IPR and BPCIA Litigation Updates, December 31, 2023), in...more
As we settle into 2024, we reflect on the significant legal developments of 2023 that hold potential impact on the biologics and biosimilars market. The following is a recap of some of the top five legal decisions and...more
In the last month, there has been a flurry of activity at the PTAB related to challenges from biosimilar manufacturers related to ustekinumab, aflibercept, and eculizumab patents....more
Patents are increasingly being used to protect innovation in the food technology space. Food technology companies should carefully decide whether to use patents or trade secrets to protect their proprietary assets. ...more
Sacral neuromodulation stimulates nerves above the tailbone to treat fetal incontinence and related bowel and bladder control issues. After California-based Axonics Inc. (“Axonics”) entered the sacral neuromodulation market...more
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
Biologics have become the fastest-growing class of therapeutic compounds. They have provided innovative treatment alternatives for people who suffer from some of the most serious medical conditions known to man. The...more
This recurring feature highlights any new PTAB precedential and/or informative decisions, any new substantive Director review decisions, and any new substantive decisions issued by the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP). The...more
TWO GUNS, BUT ONLY ONE BULLET, OR, ONCE IN IPR, DO NOT SAVE YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR LITIGATION A patent can be challenged in court as a defense to an infringement action or through an administrative proceeding before the U.S....more
On August 16, 2021, the Federal Circuit handed down two rulings related to patents issued to Teva, which involve therapeutic antibodies targeting a calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”). In both cases, the Federal Circuit...more
In Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No 19-civ-4297 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 19, 2021), the parties’ forum selection clause in their non-disclosure agreement did not prevent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) from...more
As 2021 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2020. According to many readers, hot topics included Chinese...more
VIDSTREAM LLC V. TWITTER, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of a prior art reference’s publication date submitted after an IPR petition may be...more
Moderna, one of the global leaders in developing a safe and effective vaccine to combat COVID-19, appears poised to get through clinical trials with a vaccine that is based on mRNA technology. As was recently announced,...more
As previously reported, in February 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final written decisions in two IPR proceedings initiated by Sanofi challenging the U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (the ’487 patent) owned by...more
On September 24, 2020 the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., in which the Federal Circuit addressed whether statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) applies to a party who...more
In a consolidated appeal from the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple, Inc. challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that Voip-Pal.com, Inc.’s patents were not obvious over the prior...more
Last week, four major technology companies – Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel – brought suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), challenging its authority to reject petitions for inter...more
FACEBOOK, INC., V. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC Before Prost, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review challenges to the Board's joinder...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of any inter partes review (IPR). Such discretionary denial may be based on a variety of considerations, such as the existence of an ongoing...more