News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patent Litigation

McDermott Will & Emery

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception...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

Holland & Knight LLP

Section 101 Patent Eligibility Roundup: An Informative PTAB Decision, Squires Speaks

Holland & Knight LLP on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated a recent decision as informative. In the decision, Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), ended the petitioner's challenges, noting that...more

Foley Hoag LLP

A Super CRISPR Week – the Week of May 12, 2025: Patent Battles, Clinical Milestones, and Next-Gen Tools

Foley Hoag LLP on

Key Takeaways: Federal Circuit Reopens CRISPR-Cas9 Priority Fight. The CAFC vacated the PTAB’s earlier ruling that UC lacked prior conception of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells, remanding the interference for reconsideration...more

Jones Day

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Jones Day on

Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

The Top Five Challenges of Pursuing Litigation at the ITC

Troutman Pepper Locke on

Patent litigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC) is characterized by its rapid pace, with proceedings for investigations under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 typically concluding within 15 to 18 months after the filing of the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Provides Clarity on Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in IPRs

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Is it Prior Art? Check the Provisional Application!

This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzed collateral estoppel and the extent to which the non-provisional document would benefit from the provisional application’s priority date, as it relates to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute

The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) Must an inventor know their invention will work to demonstrate that they “conceived” of it? ...more

Fish & Richardson

Acting USPTO Director Stewart Issues First Decisions Under Interim Discretionary Denial Process

Fish & Richardson on

On Friday, May 16, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued discretionary denial decisions in the first four matters considered under the USPTO’s new interim workload management process....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

Haug Partners LLP

The PTAB’s Overhaul of Its Discretionary Denial Procedures Signals a Pro-Patent Pivot

Haug Partners LLP on

Since Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart took office in 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has overhauled its discretionary denial procedures for inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs)....more

Jones Day

Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

Jones Day on

On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

A New Dawn for Patent Owners? Breaking Down the PERA and PREVAIL Acts of 2025

In a move that could reshape the U.S. patent landscape, Congress has reintroduced two major pieces of legislation: the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2025 and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

Jones Day on

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Patents That Merely Claim Applying Machine Learning to a New Field of Use Are Not Patent Eligible

WilmerHale on

Stark, J. Sage Products, LLC (“Sage”) challenged a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding two of Sage’s patents unpatentable. After the original appellee, Becton, Dickinson and Co., withdrew, the Director of...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands in Long-Pending Dispute over CRISPR IP

Those hoping the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would finally resolve priority in the long-pending dispute between the University of California and the Broad Institute will have to wait a little longer. Oral...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Pharmaceutical Patent Protections

This week, we take a closer look at two precedential cases concerning pharmaceutical patent protections as applied to drugs in development. In Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharm., Judge Hughes entered a dissent pushing back on the...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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Only a few days after the one-year anniversary of hearing oral argument, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. In short -- and to be explicated more...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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Considers Discretionary Denial Based on Parallel ITC Investigation, After Withdrawal of Fintiv Memo

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider...more

3,549 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 142

"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