News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Intellectual Property Litigation Claim Construction

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Judge Engelmayer Gets a Handle on “BlenderBottle” Patent Claims and Rejects Assertion of Indefiniteness

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) recently construed claim terms at issue in a patent litigation between Plaintiffs Trove Brands, LLC, d/b/a The BlenderBottle Company, and Runway Blue, LLC (collectively, “Trove”) and...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Claim Construction Issues and Large Number of Claims Not Enough to Institute a Second Petition for Inter Partes Review

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...more

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Transatlantic Terminology: Skilled Artisan Could Equate UK, US Word Meanings

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Knobbe Martens

No Error: The Board Committed No Procedural Error by Relying on Evidence Outside of the Prior Art Reference

Knobbe Martens on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

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

Jones Day

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Jones Day on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

“Not That Kind of Memory Storage – Judge Oetken Grants Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement”

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

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] The Changing Landscape: Admissibility of Experts in Patent Cases

BakerHostetler on

Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Get a Grip: Not All Cords Have Handles

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement because the district court improperly narrowed a claim term during its construction. IQRIS Technologies...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Product-by-Process Analysis: Invalidity ≠ Infringement

On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...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

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Invalidity Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more

Knobbe Martens

Every Word Counts: Specification Naming Conventions Can Limit Claim Scope

Knobbe Martens on

A patent’s specification established a naming convention that applied to terms in the patent’s claims. Microchip Technology filed an IPR, arguing all claims of HD Silicon Solutions’ patent were invalid. The challenged patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

It’s Obvious: Erroneous Claim Construction Can Be Harmless

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination even though it found the Board had improperly construed a claim term, because the Court found the error harmless...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Highlights the Importance of Separating Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis When Dealing with...

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc., No. 23-2218 (Fed. Cir. 2025) — On January 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s opinion that claims of a Novartis patent are invalid for lack...more

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

2024 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: District Court Design Patent Cases: A Busy Year of Case Filings

2024 was another busy year for district court decisions! There were multiple jury trials, case-dispositive design patent decisions, and claim construction decisions across a range of venues and at a range of case postures. We...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Voluminous Expert Testimony and Exhibits Insufficient on Their Own to Warrant Denial of IPR Institution

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Navigating the PREVAIL Act: Key Impacts on Litigants as It Advances in the Senate

The PREVAIL Act is now subject to debate before the full Senate. The Act will require petitioners to certify standing, two new categories of which were recently added via a manager’s amendment....more

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

Requester Side Benchmarks for Successful Reexamination Requests

Takeaways: -A requester can have a voice in ex parte reexamination prosecution. - Requesters should strategically structure their request documents to hedge against potential patent owner amendment and argument. The...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries - Intellectual Property: Year End Report

We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we...more

Jones Day

Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

Jones Day on

It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, March 2024: PTAB’s Claim Construction of Cooling Patent is Hot Issue, SCOTUS Won’t Hear IPR Joinder Challenge

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Cooling Patent Restored by Federal Circuit Over PTAB’s Claim Construction - ...more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition)

2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative...

Columbia sued Seirus, claiming that Seirus’s HeatWave products infringe Columbia’s ’093 design patent for “Heat Reflective Material.” The patent claims “[t]he ornamental design of a heat reflective material, as shown and...more

32 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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