Supplemental Examination: A Tool Worth Further Consideration - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
JONES DAY TALKS®: PTAB Litigation Blog Reaches 500 Posts ... and the PTAB Reacts to COVID-19
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Takeaways: - Claim construction for determining whether reissue claims are improperly broadened is based on fundamental claim construction cannons and not applicant intentions. - Patent Owners should check patented claims...more
This case involves an appeal from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Regeneron) efforts to prevent defendants from marketing biosimilar versions of EYLEA®, a drug used to treat eye diseases, by asserting patent infringement....more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Invega Trinza® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Ltd., No. 2023-2042, 2025 WL 946390 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025) (Circuit Judges Dyk, Prost, and District Judge Goldberg presiding;...more
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., No. 2023-1977 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Apr. 8, 2025). Opinion by Murphy (sitting by designation), joined by Moore and Chen. Azurity owns a patent directed to non-sterile...more
In a reversal of fortune, yesterday (9 April) the UK Court of Appeal awarded AstraZeneca (AZ) an interim injunction keeping Glenmark’s dapagliflozin (dapa) off the UK market until the form of order hearing in the parallel...more
Knowing what qualifies as prior art is a core requirement of patent practitioners—whether in life sciences, in the technology sectors or in post-grant proceedings. It is important to keep abreast of changes to the rules,...more
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming a district court’s judgement of infringement while vacating and remanding the district court’s damages...more
Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of infringement but vacated its damages award because the award improperly included auxiliary products lacking any functional relationship to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court misconstrued claim terms based on a misapplication of the clear and unequivocal disavowal standard and vacated its noninfringement decision. Maquet...more
With nearly 800 cases adjudicated or pending thus far at the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a possible procedural gap has appeared in the European patent system: no clear legal mechanism currently exists to resolve conflicting...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. This case addresses whether the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) is a viable defense to patent infringement....more
The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., issued on January 2, 2025, overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) factual and legal holdings in the final...more
CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB V. JSR CORP. - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A claim limitation merely reciting an inherent property or result of an otherwise obvious...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the patents at issue invalid based on the patent owner’s “quotation” letter to a third party, concluding it was a commercial offer for sale under pre-America Invents Act...more