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)
In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more
In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit partially signed off on Apple’s win before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating a number of patents owned by Corephotonics relating to dual-aperture...more
Caltech sued Broadcom and Apple for infringement, asserting three of its data transmission patents against Broadcom’s WiFi chips and certain Apple products that incorporate those chips. Apple then filed IPR petitions...more
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
In re: Apple Inc., Appeal No. 2022-162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit granted Apple’s petition for mandamus, directing the District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate...more
In Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not be the basis of an invalidity ground in an inter partes review (IPR), and therefore, an IPR petition cannot...more
On February 1, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Apple could not base an inter partes review (IPR) challenge of a Qualcomm patent solely on “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) found in the patent...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
The patent fight between Caltech and Broadcom/Apple made waves this month when the Federal Circuit vacated the $1.1 billion infringement award that Caltech had won in district court....more
On February 4, 2022, the Federal Circuit clarified that IPR estoppel extends to all claims and invalidity grounds that the petitioner could have reasonably asserted in its IPR petition. ...more
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more
In a decision dated February 1, 2022, the Federal Circuit confirmed that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not form the basis of a validity challenge in an inter partes review (IPR). The decision arose out of two IPRs...more
Bulk-Filed Patent Applications Claiming Distant Priority Trigger Prosecution Laches - In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Appeal No. 18-2390, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO met its burden to prove prosecution laches for bulk-filed...more
Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,”...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) - Our case of the week concerns issues particular to inter partes review...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Claims may be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 based on implicit disclosures of a prior art reference....more
On May 24, 2018, Apple was awarded a verdict of $533 million for Samsung’s infringement of three Apple design patents. While unsuccessful ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) were filed against two of those three design patents,...more
The PTAB denied Apple’s motion to withdraw both its IPR petition and concurrent motion for joinder to prevent Apple from circumventing potential estoppel ramifications in Apple Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,...more
In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more
Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more
In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more
In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more
Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of obviousness based on a flexible approach and further clarified the appropriate evaluation of secondary considerations...more
In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more