News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Prior Art

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Jones Day

PTAB Decides Concurrent IPR and PGR Petitions After Resolving Priority Date Dispute

Jones Day on

In anticipating a dispute over whether the America Invents Act would apply, Petitioner MPL Brands NV, Inc. (“MPL”) filed concurrent petitions for both inter partes review and post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441...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

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

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s holding of Non-Obviousness of Standard Adopted 3G Technology

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

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

USPTO Director Cracks Down on Patent Owner for Withholding Data and Imposes Severe Sanctions

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings.The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not...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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District of Delaware Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to Device Art

Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, ruled on summary judgment that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not apply to device art, even if the device is cumulative of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Wave Goodbye: Arguments Incorporated by Reference Are Waived

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s patentability determination, finding that the patent challenger waived an argument it attempted to incorporate by reference to another...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

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions: Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., 6 F.4th 1256 (Fed....

Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...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

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

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2021

[co-author: Yuke Wang, Patent Agent] 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 all...more

Goodwin

The PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more

Sunstein LLP

FanDuel Learns the Hard Way: An IPR Challenge to Any Patent Claim May be Lost if Not Comprehensive and Rigorous Enough

Sunstein LLP on

As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Calling a Printed Publication a “System” is Not Enough to Avoid IPR Estoppel

A Central District of California judge recently granted summary judgment of no obviousness based on inter partes review (IPR) estoppel because the only prior art references used to challenge patent validity could have been...more

Jones Day

Collateral Estoppel Applied by District Court Following IPR on Similar Patents

Jones Day on

In Think Prod., Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp., No. 18-CV-07506, 2019 WL 6609427, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2019), the District Court addressed whether the plaintiff patent ower was collaterally estopped from arguing validity in...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB’s New Informative Decisions Remind IPR Petitioners of Need for Well-Developed Rationale for Combining References

Knobbe Martens on

On December 11, 2019, the PTAB designated two additional decisions as “informative.”  Such informative decisions are not binding on subsequent panels, but are meant to provide guidance on recurring issues encountered by PTAB...more

49 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