News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Trial and Appeal Board Claim Construction

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

Broadening on Reissue is Based on the Scope of the Language of the Claims, Not the Original Intention of the Applicant

Takeaways: - Claim construction for determining whether reissue claims are improperly broadened is based on fundamental claim construction cannons and not applicant intentions. - Patent Owners should check patented claims...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025) In its first en banc decision of the year, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s admission of expert testimony concerning damages,...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 16, 2025

Alston & Bird on

The Regents of the University of California, et al. v. The Broad Institute, Inc., et al., Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) May 12, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Hughes and Cunningham....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

The Narrow Pathway to Patent Eligibility in the Federal Circuit

The last 11 years have taught us much about the Federal Circuit; namely, that a majority of the judges simply do not seem to appreciate software. Given the statements that several have made in opinions, one might be able to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Clickbait: Actual Scope (Not Intended Scope) Determines Broadening Reissue Analysis

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s rejection of a proposed reissue claim for being broader than the original claim, denying the inventors’ argument that the analysis...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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Claim Construction Issues and Large Number of Claims Not Enough to Institute a Second Petition for Inter Partes Review

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...more

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic

Jones Day on

In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Transatlantic Terminology: Skilled Artisan Could Equate UK, US Word Meanings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination, finding that a skilled artisan would have found the term “sterile” in a UK publication to mean the same as...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Federal Circuit Affirms Stem Cell Product-by-Process Claims: Lessons in Claim Construction and Inherency from Restem LLV v. Jadi...

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on March 4, 2025, that serves as valuable guidance for product-by-process claims, particularly in the context of inherency in claim construction. In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell,...more

Knobbe Martens

No Error: The Board Committed No Procedural Error by Relying on Evidence Outside of the Prior Art Reference

Knobbe Martens on

SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more

Jones Day

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Jones Day on

It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...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

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

Understanding the PTAB’s Recent Informative Decision: Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more

Jones Day

Provisionals’ Disclosures Must Fully Support an Issued Claim for Pre-AIA Priority

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | March 2025

Knobbe Martens on

Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-by-Process Claims - In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2054, the Federal Circuit held that inherency in product-by-process claims requires the prior art to inevitably...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Mfg. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

The inter partes review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been criticized for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find invalid all or at least some of the challenged claims,...more

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 201: The Risks and Rewards of Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more

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

The Federal Circuit Opines on a Motivation to Combine

The Federal Circuit’s holding in United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. PNC Bank N.A., No. 2023-2171, 2025 WL 339662 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2025) reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision finding no motivation to combine....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

Federal Circuit Affirms Despite Claim Construction Error

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision deeming an integrated circuit connector patent unpatentable for obviousness, despite concluding that the Board’s claim construction was erroneous. The Court also rejected a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Actavis Labs. FL, Inc. v. United States

Actavis Labs. FL, Inc. v. United States, Appeal No. 2023-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) Our Case of the Week, in the words of its author, Circuit Judge Stark, “is not actually a patent case. It is, instead, a tax case.” In...more

699 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 28

"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