News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Addresses District Court Oversight of Expert Testimony on Infringement

In Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation, the Federal Circuit addressed the boundaries a district court may impose on experts by deeming their testimony wrong as a matter of law. Background - Steuben Foods...more

Venable LLP

Patent Litigation Defense 101: What to Know When You’ve Been Sued for Infringement

Venable LLP on

If your company has just been named in a patent infringement lawsuit, you may be facing an unfamiliar and high-stakes process. Patent litigation is unlike most commercial disputes—it involves complex legal standards, highly...more

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

One Year of LKQ v. GM: How Much Has Really Changed?

One year ago today, the en banc Federal Circuit decided LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, where it overturned the decades-old Rosen-Durling test for obviousness of a design patent for being “improperly...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

Jones Day on

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 9, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Ingenico Inc., et al. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No. 2023-1367 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) May 7, 2025). Opinion by Hughes, joined by Dyk and Prost. Ingenico filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE relating to two patents owned...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) / Fulphila® (pegfilgrastim-jmdb) / Udenyca® (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) / Ziextenzo®...

Venable LLP on

Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

A Line in the Sand: Federal Circuit Bounds IPR Estoppel in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] Make It Plain: Clarity Regarding Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

BakerHostetler on

In a year defined by landmark decisions, impactful announcements and new standards, clarity in the patent world comes as a welcome relief. It arrived via a federal circuit court decision in August 2024 that settled certain...more

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

Ingenico: Federal Circuit Narrows the Scope of IPR Estoppel Under § 315(e)(2)

On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC that narrows the scope of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), resolving a longstanding district...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Humira® (adalimumab) / Amjevita™ (adalimumab-atto) / Cyltezo® (adalimumab-adbm) / Hyrimoz™ (adalimumab-adaz) /...

Venable LLP on

Adalimumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - May 2025

Venable LLP on

Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Federal Circuit Interprets IPR Estoppel Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to Permit at Trial Invalidity Theories Based on Prior Use or...

Venable LLP on

On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, effectively holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel cannot preclude an IPR petitioner from advancing in a district court trial an...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Breaking Down the Bifurcated PTAB Review Process: What the USPTO’s Recent FAQ Drop Reveals

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memorandum introducing a new interim process for handling institution decisions in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs). The Office just...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | April 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In Ams-Osram USA Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2185, the Federal Circuit held that under Texas law, a trade secret becomes publicly accessible on the earliest date it could be reverse engineered...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Use of Amazon Warehouses for Distribution Alone Won't Establish Patent Venue, Court Rules

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Key Takeaway: Just as over a million businesses use Amazon web servers, many independent sellers also use Amazon warehouses to store their inventory. More than 60% of sales in the Amazon store come from independent sellers,...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Broadening Your (Patent) Protection

In the fast-paced world of innovation, inventors sometimes realize that their patents do not fully protect their inventions until after the patent issues. If the patent family has an application still pending at the patent...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Taiho Pharma Co. v. MSN Labs Private Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Lonsurf® (tipiracil) - Case Name: Taiho Pharma Co. v. MSN Labs Private Ltd., No. 19-2342-JLH (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2025) (Hall, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Lonsurf® (tipiracil); U.S. Patent No. 10,457,666 (“the ’666...more

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

Federal Circuit Reaffirms “Carried Forward” Requirement for Provisional Priority in Reexams and Reissues

Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more

Fish & Richardson

Can Clinical Trials Negate Patentability for Pharma Inventions?

Fish & Richardson on

The answer to this inquiry is “yes” — but maybe “no.” Will confidentiality agreements shield any prior art concerns? Once again, maybe “yes” — but maybe “no.” Indeed, do clinical trials constitute an experimental use that...more

Morgan Lewis

Priority Catch-22: Federal Circuit Chills Design Patent with Rejection of Priority Claim

Morgan Lewis on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that highlights a risk in design patent prosecution—specifically, attempting to claim priority to a utility application. In re Floyd, the Federal...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Federal Circuit Affirms Stem Cell Product-by-Process Claims: Lessons in Claim Construction and Inherency from Restem LLV v. Jadi...

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on March 4, 2025, that serves as valuable guidance for product-by-process claims, particularly in the context of inherency in claim construction. In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell,...more

Hogan Lovells

Court of Appeal hands down reasons for awarding AZ an interim injunction in the UK against Glenmark’s generic dapagliflozin for...

Hogan Lovells on

Just under two weeks ago, we reported the Court of Appeal had awarded AstraZeneca (AZ) a preliminary injunction in the UK against Glenmark’s generic dapagliflozin (dapa) product for type II diabetes, until the hearing...more

McCarter & English, LLP

The Patents Are Coming! The Patents Are Coming!—USPTO Reduces Time to Issue Patents

Under the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) modernization efforts, the time between paying the issue fee and issuance of the patent is being reduced. Faster patent issuance gives patent applicants less time...more

439 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 18

"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