News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art United States Patent and Trademark Office

A&O Shearman

The Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Use Of Traditional Construction Of “Consisting Essentially Of”

A&O Shearman on

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot Form “Part of the Basis” of an IPR Ground, Reversing a PTAB Win for...

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a...more

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

The Evolution of “New” in the “Substantial New Question” Standard in Patent Reexamination

As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Acting USPTO Director refocus challengers, and with them Patent Owners, towards reexamination from inter partes review proceedings, the need to understand the nuance of “new” in...more

MoFo Life Sciences

What Makes a Good Cell and Gene Therapy Application?

MoFo Life Sciences on

Cell and gene therapies represent a transformative frontier in modern medicine, offering potential cures for previously untreatable conditions. However, securing intellectual property (IP) protection for these innovations...more

MoFo Life Sciences

A Tip for Improving Your “Improved” Jepson Claim: Include Written Description Support

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Patent Obviousness in the AI Era

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

The proliferation of artificial intelligence (“AI”) presents complex challenges for intellectual property, especially within patent law. In particular, the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be susceptible to...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – June 2025

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Jones Day

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

Jones Day on

A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more

Volpe Koenig

“Settled Expectations” as the New Gatekeeper for PTAB Discretionary Denials: Why Late-Stage IPRs Are Getting Harder to File

Volpe Koenig on

When Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in Dabico v. AXA Power IPR2025-00408  Paper 21, much of the commentary focused on the result....more

Volpe Koenig

When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn

Volpe Koenig on

Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more

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

Latest Director Discretionary Denial Decision in iRhythm Provides Valuable Insights

On June 6, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Stewart issued a decision in iRhythm Tech. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (and four related IPRs), which granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. This is...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Discretionary Denials—Act II

On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office fundamentally changed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) initially considers petitions in post grant proceedings under 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

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Accelerates Patent Issuance Timeline - Key Impacts for Patent Applicants and Holders

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Effective May 13, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will implement a significant change to its patent issuance process, substantially reducing the time between issue notification and patent issuance....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

The Rise of System Art: The Federal Circuit Shelters System Art From IPR Estoppel

Prior art patents and publications have long been the primary source for anticipation and obviousness assertions by defendants in IP litigation. System art—an actual system or device—is a less common source of prior art due...more

BakerHostetler

US Patents Set to Issue 33 Percent Faster from the Notification Date

BakerHostetler on

Starting May 13, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will accelerate the time between issue notification and the issue date of a patent. That is, the time frame will be cut from about three weeks to two weeks –...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

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

Estoppel Certification in Reexamination

Estoppel certification in reexamination prevents relitigation of resolved issues....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

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

USPTO Moves to Expedite Patent Issuance

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

The USPTO recently announced that they would expedite patent issuance by reducing the time between Issue Notification and Issue Date. Effective May 13, 2025, patents will now issue approximately two weeks after receiving the...more

DLA Piper

Patenting Quantum Computing: Challenges, Trends, and Future Prospects

DLA Piper on

Predictions about the arrival of fault-tolerant quantum computing and commercially viable quantum computing vary widely. Some experts estimate that within the next three to five years, we may see early quantum advantage in...more

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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

The Uncertain Future of Section 101: Patent Eligibility in the Wake of Recent Supreme Court (In)Action

Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains one of the most hotly contested and unpredictable areas of U.S. patent law. In the years following the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l...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

437 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 18

"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