5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
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
A set of recently issued memoranda by United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) officials has re-energized the debate around discretionary denials in post-grant trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)....more
When Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in Dabico v. AXA Power IPR2025-00408 Paper 21, much of the commentary focused on the result....more
Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more
On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more
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
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
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
Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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