News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Infringement Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 18, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., et al., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Apr. 18, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Prost and Goldberg (sitting by designation). Recentive sued Fox for infringing four patents that...more

Jones Day

PTAB Finds Petition Time Barred

Jones Day on

In 2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied inter partes review (“IPR”) institution where the petition was time barred under 35 U.S.C. § ...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Don’t Get Lazy, Timely Complete Your Arguments

This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness.  Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is the owner of U.S....more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Jones Day on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

You Snooze, You Lose: Federal Circuit Emphasized Once Again the Importance of Preserving Issues for Appellate Review

AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 23-1512 (Fed. Cir. 2025) – On March 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions invalidating all claims of three AliveCor...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

Jones Day

PTAB Announces Bifurcated Process for Consideration of Discretionary Denial Issues

Jones Day on

A new interim process for the Director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review(IPR) or a post grant review (PGR) was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary considerations and...more

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

Product-by-Process Analysis: Invalidity ≠ Infringement

On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Touches on Appellate Standing and Prior Art Determinations in the Context of Post-Grant Review Proceedings

In CQV Co. Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) the interaction of indemnification agreements with Article III standing for appeals of post-grant review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending March 14, 2025

Alston & Bird on

CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, No. 2023-1027 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Mar. 10, 2025). Opinion by Cunningham, joined by Chen and Mayer. CQV petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for post-grant review of a Merck patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: In re: Xencor, Inc.

In re: Xencor, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1870 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025) Our case of the week is an appeal from a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, concerning Xencor’s patent application...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analysis Finding Product-by-Process Claim Narrowed During Prosecution Valid Over Prior Art

In a precedential opinion issued on March 4, 2025, in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No, 23-2054, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction and ruling that product-by-process...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: The Federal Circuit Clarifies When Collateral Estoppel Applies Following Inter Partes Review Proceedings in Kroy IP...

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. Overview - The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding of...more

ArentFox Schiff

Federal Circuit Refuses to Extend IPR Estoppel to Unadjudicated Patent Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 127 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held that patentees in district court are not collaterally estopped from asserting claims that were not immaterially different...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Rules That Order Of Steps Sometimes Does Matter

Jones Day on

Back in May of 2020, European patent-licensing company Sisvel filed a flurry of lawsuits against a dozen tech companies who had allegedly infringed Sisvel’s portfolio of wireless communication and networking patents. A...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In HD Silicon Solutions LLC V. Microchip Technology Inc., Appeal No. 23-1397, the Federal Circuit held that  all but one patent claim were invalid as obvious because the claimed material, as properly construed, was disclosed...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - March 2025

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

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

Reexamination of Expired Patents

Takeaways - - Expired patents may be eligible for reexamination. - Owner’s options during reexamination of an expired patent are severely limited. Similar to reexamination practice, which has long allowed reexamination...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2023-1475, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) Our Case of the Week is a high-stakes appeal from an inter partes review concerning a patent titled “Camera Based...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Amundsen Davis LLC

Preserving Patent Rights: Impact of Public Use on Patenting

Amundsen Davis LLC on

For a business planning to market a product that incorporates an invention, having an enforceable patent to protect the invention is often desirable. Two recent federal circuit cases reiterate what many patent holders and...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

1,516 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 61

"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