News & Analysis as of

Patents Article III

Goodwin

Third Circuit Affirms Rejection of AstraZeneca’s Challenges to IRA Drug Price Negotiation Program

Goodwin on

On May 8, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of AstraZeneca’s challenges to the Inflation Reduction Act’s Drug Price Negotiation Program and CMS’s Guidance implementing...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Article III Appellate Standing Under the Sun

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Incyte’s appeal of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, holding that a disappointed validity challenger lacked appellate standing to challenge the Board’s final...more

Jones Day

PTAB Retains Jurisdiction Of Expired Patents

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Navigating the PREVAIL Act: Key Impacts on Litigants as It Advances in the Senate

The PREVAIL Act is now subject to debate before the full Senate. The Act will require petitioners to certify standing, two new categories of which were recently added via a manager’s amendment....more

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

The PREVAIL Act Could Change PTAB Trials in a Big Way

Since the America Invents Act (“AIA”) established a new venue for hearing patent disputes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), much ink has been spilled regarding the impacts of this forum on patent litigation and the...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, September 2024: PTAB Issues Fintiv Denial on Wireless Carriers’ IPR, Federal Circuit Denies Standing for IPR Appeal

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: PTAB Issues Fintiv Denial, Leaving Wireless Carrier Patent to E.D. Texas - ...more

Jones Day

Lack of Injury In Fact Scuttles Appeal

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit dismissed Platinum Optics Technology Inc.’s (PTOT) appeal from an IPR decision, finding the challenged claims of Viavi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369 not unpatentable, because PTOT failed to establish an...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Without Concrete Evidence of Potential Infringement Liability, Petitioner Lacked Standing to Challenge PTAB’s Final Written...

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Blurred Vision: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - August 2024 #3

Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., Appeal No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit clarifies rules relating to when an applicant’s patent can be...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Federal Circuit Wades Into Article III Standing in Patent Cases Once Again

In the precedential decision of Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that dismissed a...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Constitutional Standing Not Required for 337 Investigations

While a complainant does not need to have constitutional standing to bring a complaint in the International Trade Commission (ITC), at least one complainant must be the owner or exclusive licensee of the underlying asserted...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Section 337 Doesn’t Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be “Patentee”

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the language used in an invention assignment clause was subject to more than one reasonable...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Puma and the Pitfalls of the “Narrow” Exclusive License

8 Puma Biotechnology is the latest victim of standing requirements in patent cases that continue to wreak havoc on plaintiffs’ ability to recover a full measure of damages. In Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Bayer Covenants Not to Sue, Still Has Headache

Bayer's ‘053 patent on its drug Xarelto® expires in November 2024, and Bayer granted Mylan a covenant not to sue. Bayer has a second patent that is subject to a pediatric exclusivity that expires later - February 2025 - and...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2023

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

See Here: No Standing Based on Vague Future Plans or Adverse Priority Findings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed....

Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Best Medical Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th...

Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...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

Knobbe Martens

Failure to Vacate Adverse Standing Decision Upon Settlement Stops Subsequent Suits

Knobbe Martens on

UNILOC USA, INC. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes.  Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Failure to vacate an adverse ruling regarding a lack of standing when...more

Hudnell Law Group

Fifth Circuit Denies Patent Owners’ Attempt To Formalize PTAB’s Discretionary Denials

Hudnell Law Group on

In 2021, an organization of patent owners and various patent-holding companies sued the USPTO in the Eastern District of Texas.  The patent owners sought to force the USPTO Director to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP

What’s the Best Court For Your Patent Infringement Suit? The Answer May Have Just Changed

From the moment he first took the bench in the Waco Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas four years ago, Judge Alan Albright made it known that he welcomed the filing of patent cases...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - May 2022 #3

Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, Appeal No. 2021-1989 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2022) - Our Case of the Week this week is a declaratory judgment action brought against USAA. In a 27-page opinion,...more

Knobbe Martens

It Is Not Controversial: Factual and Legal Specificity Needed in Standing Dismissals

Knobbe Martens on

MITEK SYS., INC. V. UNITED SERVS. AUTO. ASS’N - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary:  Declaratory judgment plaintiffs must identify...more

260 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 11

"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