News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Infringement

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

Venable LLP

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

The Clear and Unmistakable Standard for Applying Prosecution Disclaimer

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

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

Jones Day

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the General...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) - January 2025

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

McDermott Will & Emery

A New Vision: Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Extend to Related Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent,...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

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

Knobbe Martens

Platinum Cannot Stand on Speculation

Knobbe Martens on

Before Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Standing based on potential infringement liability requires concrete plans for future activity which will create a substantial risk of future infringement...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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Affirms Claim Construction and How It Applies

Jones Day on

In Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed two PTAB decisions in IPRs filed by Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PacBio) that challenged a...more

Fish & Richardson

Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2023

Fish & Richardson on

This post reviews developments from the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas in December 2023. ...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes - April 19th - 20th, New York, NY

Hosted by ACI, 18th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference returns to New York City for another exciting year with curated programming that not only addresses the hot topics, but also puts them within the context of pre-suit...more

International Lawyers Network

Parties to exploratory agreements beware: Contractual restrictions on IPR patent challenges are enforceable!

On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that certain restrictions on the ability to challenge the validity of patents are enforceable. Without such restrictions, companies that are...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Arbitration Clause Not Binding on the United States Patent Office

The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in MaxPower Semiconductor Inc. et al v. Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC highlights the interplay between the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements and the Patent Trial and...more

Jones Day

Fed. Cir. Directs Dismissal of Ex Parte Reexam

Jones Day on

On September 29, 2021, the Federal Circuit in In re: Vivint, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) held that 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) applies to both inter partes review (IPR) petitions and requests for ex parte reexamination.  Accordingly, the...more

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - September #2

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - In Re MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. [ORDER]  (2021-146, 9/8/21) (O’Malley, Reyna, Chen) - Reyna, J.  Denying mandamus petition and dismissing appeal.  The Court declined to...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] Paragraph IV Disputes Conference - November 9th - 10th, New York, NY

Join the conference that the “who’s who” of Hatch-Waxman litigators have designated as the forum which sets the standards for Paragraph IV practice. ACI’s Paragraph IV Litigation Conference is returning LIVE & IN-PERSON to...more

Jones Day

Printed Publications: Simply Existing Isn’t Enough

Jones Day on

When filing an IPR, petitioners should be careful not to take for granted one of the most fundamental aspects of challenging validity in this forum: Whether or not the relied upon references qualify as prior art.  Pursuant to...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - July 2021

[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more

Jones Day

Patent Need Not Be Valid To Be 102(e)(pre-AIA) Prior Art

Jones Day on

This blog has previously discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, — F.3d —, No. 2020-1937, 2021 WL 2176796 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021).  See Telepharma Disconnect:  Federal...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Your Patent Has Been Challenged in an IPR; Now What?

Don’t Panic - Facing an inter partes review (IPR) challenge is a new experience for many patent owners, even though IPRs have quickly become a preferred avenue for accused infringers and other interested parties to challenge...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Minerva Surgical v. Hologic

On April 21, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., a case involving whether the doctrine of assignor estoppel should be retained, abolished, or limited. In general, assignor...more

73 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