News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Infringement

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

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

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 18, 2025

Alston & Bird on

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

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

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Don’t Get Lazy, Timely Complete Your Arguments

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

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

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

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

PTAB Year in Review – Caveat Experimenter: Using Experimental Data in PTAB Proceedings Comes With Risks

Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more

Jones Day

Two Separate Analyses: Nonobviousness vs Enablement

Jones Day on

Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement.  Duration Media...more

Jones Day

Speculative IPR Discovery Request Not in the Interest of Justice

Jones Day on

“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

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

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Motion for Joinder After Unsuccessful District Court Invalidity Challenge

Jones Day on

On June 6, 2024, Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. (“Waydoo”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 (“the ’044 Patent”) (“IPR998”), assigned to MHL Custom, Inc. (“MHL”)....more

Hudnell Law Group

Published but not Public? Federal Circuit Confirms Published Patent Applications Count as Prior Art from Filing Date in IPRs.

Hudnell Law Group on

On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025), addressing whether a...more

Jones Day

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the General...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2025 #3

Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that appellants Bearbox and Austin Storms—Bearbox’s...more

Jones Day

Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”) where Petitioner later filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent.   Shenzhen Root Tech. Co.,...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision Regarding DNA Sampling Patent

A&O Shearman on

On January 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejecting a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277...more

Warner Norcross + Judd

Federal Circuit Affirms the Use of ‘Secret’ Prior Art

Warner Norcross + Judd on

In a recent precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that a patent application constitutes prior art as of its filing date, not its publication date. In Lynk Labs. Inc. v....more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A.

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025). The Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the...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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) - January 2025

Venable LLP on

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

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

A POSA’s Motivation Is Not Required To Be the Same as the Inventor’s in Evaluating Obviousness

In its first precedential opinion of 2025, Honeywell v. 3G Licensing, No. 2023-1354, the Federal Circuit held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) needs not to have the same motivation as the inventor in an...more

Jones Day

Thickness Arguments Cross the Line for Federal Circuit

Jones Day on

When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” ...more

307 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 13

"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