News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Applications America Invents Act

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Limits Reliance on Provisional Priority Date Under Section 102(e)(1)

On March 24, the Federal Circuit held in In re Riggs that for a published non-provisional patent application to be prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) based on an earlier provisional filing date, all citations to...more

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Riggs Decision: 35 USC 102(e) Prior Art Requires Written Description Support...

Goodwin on

On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: In re: Riggs

In re: Riggs, Appeal No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) Our Case of the Week explores the power of an examiner to request a rehearing after the Board has entered a decision on an application. The case also relates to...more

Kilpatrick

PTAB: A Provisional Application Must Provide Written Description Support for Relied Upon

Kilpatrick on

In a decision issued today, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether an Examiner can rely on the filing date of a provisional application under pre-AIA 102(e) to support a rejection based on a later-filed and...more

Ward and Smith, P.A.

First-to-File: A Game-Changer in US Patent Law

Ward and Smith, P.A. on

The United States patent system underwent a significant change with the enactment of the First-Inventor-to-File (FITF) provision of the America Invents Act, which became effective on March 16, 2013. The FITF provision...more

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

Antedating Prior Art in Reissue and Reexamination: Part 1

Takeaways - - Pre-AIA patents may be able to “swear behind” prior art applied in reissue and reexamination. - “Swearing behind” has limits and obtaining sufficient evidence to establish prior invention may be difficult to...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art?

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In a precedential opinion entered on January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating claims of a patent on...more

Morgan Lewis

Federal Circuit Clarifies Secret Prior Art May Be Used in IPR Challenges

Morgan Lewis on

On January 14, 2025, the Federal Circuit in Lynk Labs Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. clarified that inter partes review challenges may be “based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit’s Decision Confirms That Published Patent Applications Are Prior Art In IPRs As Of Their Filing Date

WilmerHale on

On January 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir.), affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling that “a published patent...more

Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC

Fee Changes for Patent Matters

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced changes to patent fees, which will take effect on Jan 19, 2025. Most current fees are subject to a 7.5% across-the-board increase while other fees are...more

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

Historical Development of Substantial New Question contrasted with the new Section 325(d) Criteria

Ex parte reexamination proceedings have been available for over 40 years. The reexamination statutes, Public Law 96-517 of July 1, 1981 (also known as the Bayh-Dole Act), included 35 U.S.C. § 303, which codified, in part,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings

Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims,...more

Strafford

[Webinar] Patent Inventorship: Best Practices for Determination and Correction - Distinguishing Between Inventor and Contributor;...

Strafford on

This CLE course will guide patent counsel in identifying and determining inventorship and offer best practices for correcting errors regarding inventorship. Our experienced panel will provide perspectives gained from working...more

Morgan Lewis

Breaking Down the USPTO’s Not-So-Obvious Obviousness Guidelines

Morgan Lewis on

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently updated its guidance for patent examiners and applicants in determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103, based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Celanese v. ITC – Exploring the Crossroads of Trade Secrets and Patent Rights Post AIA

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

On March 4, the Federal Circuit, heard oral arguments for Celanese Int’l. v ITC, 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. 2024), a case that may reshape the dynamics between trade secrets and patent rights....more

WilmerHale

PTAB/USPTO Update - March 2024

WilmerHale on

On February 13, the USPTO issued inventorship guidance for AI-assisted innovations. The guidance, effective as of February 13, 2024, emphasizes that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable and the...more

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Over-Sweetening the Pot? When Selling a Product Bars Patenting the Manufacturing Process Under the AIA

The America Invents Act ("AIA") bars a person from obtaining a patent when the “claimed invention” had been “on sale” more than one year before the filing date of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). Acesulfame potassium...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2023

Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2023) In a PTAB decision that was recently designated precedential, the Board made two important decisions concerning provisional patent...more

Fenwick & West LLP

USPTO Doubles Down on Inapplicability of Dynamic Drinkware to AIA Cases in Precedential PTAB Decision

Fenwick & West LLP on

What You Need to Know The USPTO has reiterated its position that Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. does not apply to patents and patent applications that fall under the America Invents Act (AIA) by designating...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

SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., No. 22-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023)

This case addresses certain implications of the Laehy-Smith America Invests Act (AIA), namely whether patents with a filing date after March 16, 2013 (pure AIA patents) may be part of an interference proceeding under pre-AIA,...more

Jones Day

Study Shows the Decline of Multiple Petitions for AIA Proceedings

Jones Day on

In an effort to shed light on the practice of filing multiple petitions under the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

In re Theripion (Fed. Cir. 2023)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has benefited, particularly after enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, from the deference to its factual findings mandated by the Supreme Court's interpretation in...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - July 2023 #3

SNIPR Technologies Limited v. Rockefeller University, Appeal No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) Our case of the week addresses a wrinkle in the law concerning disputes between parties that filed patent applications...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Throwing A Life Raft To Patentability When Facing The “On Sale” Bar

As I described in the first two parts of this series, there are a number of ways in which the “on sale” bar can cost the unwitting inventor dearly. Hence, lastly, I would like to highlight some of the exceptions that can be...more

170 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"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