Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
The answer to this inquiry is “yes” — but maybe “no.” Will confidentiality agreements shield any prior art concerns? Once again, maybe “yes” — but maybe “no.” Indeed, do clinical trials constitute an experimental use that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that highlights a risk in design patent prosecution—specifically, attempting to claim priority to a utility application. In re Floyd, the Federal...more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a list of FAQs related to the new bifurcated process for discretionary denial established in the March 26 memorandum issued by Acting Director Stewart. The FAQs...more
Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., et al., No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Apr. 18, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Prost and Goldberg (sitting by designation). Recentive sued Fox for infringing four patents that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination, finding that a skilled artisan would have found the term “sterile” in a UK publication to mean the same as...more
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
SAGE PRODUCTS, LLC v. STEWART [OPINION] - Before Reyna, Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board did not abuse its discretion by relying on...more
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
When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more
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
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
Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more
On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on...more
On March 28, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decision that Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (“Mylan”) induced...more
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgement of noninfringement, finding that the lower court had improperly construed the claim term “pull cord.” The district court had erroneously limited...more
It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
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
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
Insulin Glargine 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
The Federal Circuit recently opined on whether a stipulation in litigation can overcome a disclaimer made during the prosecution history of a patent. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows generic drug companies to use clinical results...more
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
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed that defendant Alkem’s proposed generic antibiotic did not...more
On March 31, 2025, Judge Oetken granted summary judgment for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries (“Samsung”) in an infringement suit brought against it by Dynamics Inc. (“Dynamics”). Dynamics Inc v....more
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is the owner of U.S....more