Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | AI and Your Patent Management, Strategy & Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
A Guide to SEP: Standard Essential Patents for Tech Startups
Hilary Preston, Vice Chair at Vinson & Elkins, Discusses Energy Innovation: Protecting Your Intellectual Property Portfolio
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 1) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
(Podcast) The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
The Briefing: 2025 IP Resolutions Start With a Review of IP Assets
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Review 2024 and Look Ahead to 2025
(Podcast) The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
The Briefing: A Very Patented Christmas – The Quirkiest Inventions for the Holiday Season
A Conversation with Phil Hamzik
5 Key Takeaways | Alice at 10: A Section 101 Update
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP and M&A Transactions
4 Tips for Protecting Your AI Products
Innovating with AI: Ensuring You Own Your Inventions
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
AGG Talks: Cross-Border Business Podcast - Episode 20: Mastering ITC Section 337 Investigations
Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges in the Renewable Energy Sector - Energy Law Insights
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Although it may seem counterintuitive, the PTAB has jurisdiction over expired patents, and patent owners may need to defend their expired patents in inter partes review. The PTAB recently reiterated this in Apple, Inc. v....more
Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more
It has been argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) cannot engage in rulemaking through decisions made by its administrative patent judges (APJs), even if those decisions are made precedential, as APJs...more
On August 23, 2019, the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a precedential opinion relating to the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). ...more
GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754 (Precedential Opinion Panel, August 23, 2019) - Section 315(b) of Title 35 prohibits institution of an IPR where the petition is filed more than one year after service of a...more
The US Court of Appeals vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding that the disputed means-plus-function term was computer-implemented and therefore required the corresponding structure to...more
Back in March, I reported on the breadth of comments the USPTO received in response to its new Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. Now, Congress has taken up the issue with a proposed draft of a new bipartisan,...more
Hogan Lovells’ U.S. + German Patent Update reports on recent patent news and cases from Germany and the United States. United States - - U.S. Congress Introduces Bill Addressing Patent Subject Matter Eligibility -...more
Did AVX Suffer A Constitutionally Recognizable Injury? AVX did not need Article III standing to file its IPR petition with the PTO because the PTAB is not an Article III tribunal. Further, the AIA provides that “a party...more
This week, the Supreme Court left open the question of Article III standing with regards to appealing a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) that is favorable to the patent owner. On...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - AVX Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019) - Following an inter partes review upholding the patentability of certain challenged claims, the...more
Article III of the Constitution imposes a “case or controversy” limitation on the jurisdiction of federal courts: an actual case or controversy must exist between the parties at all stages of the federal court proceedings,...more
The Federal Circuit just issued a decision that confirms its stance on Article III standing for appeals from inter partes reviews (IPRs), making it tougher for unsuccessful IPR petitioners to obtain judicial review of U.S....more
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (the “‘650 Patent”), which is owned by UCB Pharma GmbH (“UCB”) and is directed to chemical derivatives of a drug for treating...more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
On August 3, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd. on the basis that the appellant lacked...more
Today the Supreme Court re-affirmed the validity of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process in Oil States Energy LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, but also made IPRs a somewhat more stringent process in its decision today in...more
Biosimilar developers have been aggressive in filing petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of biologics patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), many of them preceding the filing of a marketing...more