News & Analysis as of

Post-Grant Review Vacated

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022: Blending Butane Brings Contract Law to 35 U.S.C. § 102's On-Sale Bar and...

As post grant review allows for on sale bar assertions, and thus experimental use defenses, we wanted to highlight a recent case addressing these issues. Sunoco sued Venture and U.S. Oil Co. for infringement of U.S. Patent...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

Goodwin

Issue 33: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE FINTIV FACTORS REMAIN - The Board has increasingly exercised its discretion to deny petitions in recent months, mainly due to the application of the Fintiv factors due to parallel...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

PTAB Presses Pause On All Arthrex Remands

On Friday, May 1, 2020, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) paused all activity in the significant number of PTAB cases remanded to it from the Federal Circuit...more

Troutman Pepper

Arthrex Is Not for Everyone

Troutman Pepper on

Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2020). - On January 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order that denied IPR petitioner Ciena’s motion to have a judgment...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals From The PTAB: Summaries of Key 2019 Decisions: Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345...

Honeywell owns U.S. Patent 9,157,017, which claims automotive air-conditioning systems. The application to the ’017 patent had originally described and recited claims for flouroalkane compounds for use in refrigeration...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2019

Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Arthrex: Administrative Patent Judges Found Unconstitutional

In a surprising precedential ruling, with the potential to vacate past decisions by administrative patent judges (“APJs”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Evidence of Copying Must Be Considered In Obviousness Analysis

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that failed to take into account evidence of copying in its obviousness analysis. The Federal...more

White & Case LLP

Federal Circuit Rules the Appointment of PTAB Judges Unconstitutional – IPR Appellants May Get Another Shot with Remand to PTAB

White & Case LLP on

On October 31, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") issued a decision, authored by Judge Moore, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140. The CAFC held that the...more

Troutman Pepper

The PTAB and the Constitution

Troutman Pepper on

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Federal Circuit Says PTAB APJ Appointments Were Unconstitutional – Now What?

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Yesterday October 31, 2019, a 3-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen) issued a unanimous decision holding that the USPTO’s appointment practice for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) violates the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Holds Appointment of PTAB Judges Violates the Constitution, Vacates and Remands Final Written Decision

n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more

Knobbe Martens

Copying May Show Nonobviousness Even If No Specific Product Is Copied

Knobbe Martens on

LIQWD, INC. v. L'OREAL USA, INC. Before Reyna, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of copying was relevant to nonobviousness even though the copied feature came from...more

Troutman Pepper

What Belongs to the Director Stays With the Director

Troutman Pepper on

Honeywell Int’l v. Arkema, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1151, -1153 (Fed. Cir., October 1, 2019) - Arkema filed two petitions for post-grant review of a Honeywell patent pertaining to fluoroalkene compounds used in refrigerator...more

Troutman Pepper

Federal Circuit Vacates a Board Decision for Failure to Construe a Term as a Means Plus Function Limitation

Troutman Pepper on

MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, Appeal No. 2017-2292 (Fed. Cir. August 12, 2019) - MTD had a patent for steering and driving systems for zero turn radius vehicles, such as lawn mowers. The patent was challenged in IPR, where...more

WilmerHale

Supreme Court Vacates Federal Circuit Decision Defining the Scope of CBM Review

WilmerHale on

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court granted WilmerHale client PNC Bank National Association's (PNC Bank) petition for writ of certiorari and vacated a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit restricting the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit to PTAB: No Short Cuts Allowed

Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...more

23 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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