News & Analysis as of

Patents Anticipation Intellectual Property Protection

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court: Incorporation by Reference for Purposes of Anticipation Requires More than a Parenthetical

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Anticipation Analysis for Product-By-Process Claims

In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 2023-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision holding that U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 (“the ’176 patent”) was not inherently...more

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

2024 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends - Design Patents at the PTAB: 2024 in Review

Inter partes activity involving design patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was relatively low in 2024. The PTAB rendered just two inter partes decisions involving design patents: Next Step Group, Inc. v....more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): A Trio of Claim Construction Cases

This year we are covering three claim construction cases from the Federal Circuit—one coming from the Board and the two from district court. Taken together, the cases are a good reminder of the high burden that a party must...more

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

“AI-Related” Chip Patents - 1.6 Billion Reasons Why Google May Have Agreed to Settle

Recent headlines have focused on the $1.6 billion damages claim and Google’s possible exposure in Singular Computing’s patent infringement lawsuit involving Google’s “AI-related” chips. $1.6 billion is certainly not chump...more

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

USPTO Confirms Different Frameworks for Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Prior-Art Determinations

On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, FKA Protiva Biotherapeutics, Inc., v. Modernatx, Inc., FKA Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. No. 2020-1183...

This case addresses the legal standard for inherent anticipation. The ’127 patent is directed to an invention that provides stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (“SNALP”) that have non-lamellar structure and “comprise a...more

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

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends: PTAB: Odds of Escaping Challenges Remain Steady for Design Patents,...

In 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not issue any final written decisions involving design patents. However, it did issue three decisions granting review of challenged design patents and three decisions...more

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

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week In The Federal Circuit (October 3 – October 7): Genus/Species Meets Inherent Anticipation

Unlike obviousness, the test for anticipation in patent law is generally pretty simple—does the prior art disclose the same thing as the challenged patent claims. But as our latest case of the week shows, that simple test can...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - March 2022

Knobbe Martens on

Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious - In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more

Harris Beach Murtha PLLC

Intellectual Property Law: Year in Review 2021

Specification and Prosecution History Narrow the Plain Meaning of “0.001%.” The claim at issue included a concentration of 0.001% of PVP. The term’s plain meaning is 0.001% within one significant figure (i.e., 0.0005% to...more

Knobbe Martens

Conclusory Statements About Prior Art Combinations Not Enough To Defeat Preliminary Injunction

Knobbe Martens on

BLEPHEX, LLC. v. MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC. Before: Moore, Schall, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Summary: Conclusory statements about how a skilled artisan would combine embodiments in a prior...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2016-2610, 2016-2683, 2016-2685, 2016-2698, 2016-2710, 2017-1001 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018) (Circuit Judges Prost, Bryson, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll,...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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