News & Analysis as of

Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office Prior Art

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Detour Ahead: New Approach to Assessing Prior Art Rejections Under § 102(e)

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a more demanding test for determining whether a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application is considered prior art under pre-America...more

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Riggs Decision: 35 USC 102(e) Prior Art Requires Written Description Support...

Goodwin on

On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more

Lathrop GPM

Significant Federal Circuit Decision Redefines Prior Art Requirements

Lathrop GPM on

Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...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

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 101: Getting to Know Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more

Kilpatrick

PTAB: A Provisional Application Must Provide Written Description Support for Relied Upon

Kilpatrick on

In a decision issued today, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether an Examiner can rely on the filing date of a provisional application under pre-AIA 102(e) to support a rejection based on a later-filed and...more

BakerHostetler

Life Sciences Newsletter - March 2025

BakerHostetler on

Welcome to the first issue of the BakerHostetler Life Sciences Newsletter! Within it you will find an overview of noteworthy developments in the life sciences space and at BakerHostetler. ...more

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Xencor Decision: Jepson Claims Require Written Description for Their...

Goodwin on

On March 13, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Xencor, Inc. (the Xencor decision). The Xencor decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel...more

Knobbe Martens

Jepson Claim Preamble Requires Written Description Support for Conventional Aspects of the Invention

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE: XENCOR, INC. Before Hughes, Stark, and Schroeder (sitting by designation).  Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. To provide adequate written description for a Jepson claim,...more

Knobbe Martens

The Board Must Provide Reasoned Explanation When Discarding Material, Unrebutted Evidence

Knobbe Martens on

CQV CO., LTD. v. MERCK PATENT GMBH - Before Cunningham, Chen, and Mayer. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board erred by failing to explain why it discarded material and unrebutted evidence that a reference...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

Saul Ewing LLP

What Intellectual Property Owners Need to Know Today About Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Saul Ewing LLP on

What You Need to Know: • Instead of filing multiple applications claiming different aspects of an invention but not sharing a single priority chain, patentees should strive to file highly comprehensive applications that...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court: Incorporation by Reference for Purposes of Anticipation Requires More than a Parenthetical

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Anticipation Analysis for Product-By-Process Claims

In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 2023-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision holding that U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 (“the ’176 patent”) was not inherently...more

Jones Day

Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

Jones Day on

On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Patent Strategy: Securing Patent Protection for New Use of Old Drugs

Foley & Lardner LLP on

GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) were initially approved for diabetes treatment (e.g., Ozempic®) but have revolutionized weight management (e.g., Wegovy®) and are now being explored for treating a wide range of health...more

421 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 17

"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