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)
On June 13, 2024, the PTAB granted institution of IPR2024-00240 that Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed in November 2023 challenging claims 1-42 of The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the...more
PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
On March 4, 2024, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed four IPRs challenging The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”) patents covering methods of treatment using pembrolizumab, which Merck sells under the trade name...more
Anticipation of a claim generally requires that a single prior art reference explicitly discloses each and every claim element. However, absent an express teaching in the prior art, a claim may also be anticipated if it is...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that prior art disclosing a class of 957 salts could not inherently anticipate claims to a salt within the class because...more
Sixty years ago, the Federal Circuit’s predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent appeals, considered whether the prior art disclosure of a chemical genus anticipated species falling within the scope of that...more
Yesterday, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed four IPR petitions (IPR2018-01229, IPR2018-01236, IPR2018-01234, and IPR2018-01237) against GlaxoSmithKline process patents – US Patent Nos. 8,753,645 and 9,265,839. The ‘645 and...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - New York Court Invalidates Targeted-Advertising Patents under Alice - A federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted counterclaim-defendant TNS’s motion for summary judgment...more
The defendant sought to engage in the commercial exploitation of generic versions of Safyral® and Beyaz®, which are covered by plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 6,441,168 (the ‘168 patent). The parties stipulated to infringement...more