News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Validity

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) / Fulphila® (pegfilgrastim-jmdb) / Udenyca® (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) / Ziextenzo®...

Venable LLP on

Pegfilgrastim 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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

A Line in the Sand: Federal Circuit Bounds IPR Estoppel in Ingenico v. IOENGINE

In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...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

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] Make It Plain: Clarity Regarding Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

BakerHostetler on

In a year defined by landmark decisions, impactful announcements and new standards, clarity in the patent world comes as a welcome relief. It arrived via a federal circuit court decision in August 2024 that settled certain...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - May 2025

Venable LLP on

Rituximab 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

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Broadening Your (Patent) Protection

In the fast-paced world of innovation, inventors sometimes realize that their patents do not fully protect their inventions until after the patent issues. If the patent family has an application still pending at the patent...more

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

Federal Circuit Reaffirms “Carried Forward” Requirement for Provisional Priority in Reexams and Reissues

Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....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

McCarter & English, LLP

The Patents Are Coming! The Patents Are Coming!—USPTO Reduces Time to Issue Patents

Under the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) modernization efforts, the time between paying the issue fee and issuance of the patent is being reduced. Faster patent issuance gives patent applicants less time...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

Miller Canfield

Jepson Claims No Substitute for Written Description in Patents

Miller Canfield on

Federal Circuit Holds That the Preamble of Jepson-Style Claims Must Be Supported by an Adequate Written Description - U.S. patent claims have a preamble, and, in most cases, the preamble is not limiting. Jepson-style...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab) / Jubbonti® / Wyost® (denosumab-bbdz) / Ospomyv™ / Xbryk™ (denosumab-dssb) / Stoboclo®...

Venable LLP on

Denosumab Challenged Claim Types in Litigation: Claims are counted in each litigation, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted...more

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

Recent Updates at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Recent changes at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have brought uncertainty to inter partes review and post-grant review practitioners before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These procedural and...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

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements To Establish Convoyed Sales In Patent Damages

A&O Shearman on

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued an opinion affirming a district court’s judgement of infringement while vacating and remanding the district court’s damages...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Expands Economic Prong Of Section 337 Domestic Industry Requirement

A&O Shearman on

Lashify, Inc. is an American company, with headquarters and employees in the United States, that distributes, markets, and sells eyelash extensions (and cases and applicators for the eyelash extensions) in the United States....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more

McDermott Will & Emery

CJEU Recognizes Cross-Border Jurisdiction of National Courts, Long-Arm Jurisdiction of UPC

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision significantly expanding the capabilities of both the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the national courts in EU Member States to issue cross-border injunctions...more

Smart & Biggar

Avoiding a finding of ambiguity and ensuring patent validity: the importance of a comprehensive disclosure and defining coined...

Smart & Biggar on

On June 7, 2024, the Federal Court issued its Judgment and Reasons in Tekna Plasma Systems Inc v AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc ( 2024 FC 871), finding all claims of the Defendant’s Canadian Patent No 3,003,502 (502...more

Morgan Lewis

CJEU Expands Cross-Border Patent Infringement Jurisdiction in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux

Morgan Lewis on

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a landmark ruling in BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux that significantly expands the jurisdictional reach of EU courts in cross-border patent infringement cases. The...more

Volpe Koenig

[CLE Webinar] Correcting Patents: A Comprehensive Overview - March 6th, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

Volpe Koenig on

Join Volpe Koenig for a webinar focused on various methods available for correcting patents after they have already issued. This session will explore the key processes and best practices related to correcting patents,...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Sidesteps Ruling on the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents Theory in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya...

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Steuben Foods Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. This case addresses whether the reverse doctrine of equivalents (RDOE) is a viable defense to patent infringement....more

Smart & Biggar

Avoiding the hindsight trap in the context of a patent obviousness analysis

Smart & Biggar on

While courts have often warned that hindsight bias should be avoided when assessing whether a patented invention would have been obvious to the skilled person, the application of this principle can be challenging in practice....more

Jones Day

PTAB Decides Concurrent IPR and PGR Petitions After Resolving Priority Date Dispute

Jones Day on

In anticipating a dispute over whether the America Invents Act would apply, Petitioner MPL Brands NV, Inc. (“MPL”) filed concurrent petitions for both inter partes review and post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441...more

381 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 16

"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