News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Obviousness

Fish & Richardson

Can Clinical Trials Negate Patentability for Pharma Inventions?

Fish & Richardson on

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

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

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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Federal Circuit Affirms Stem Cell Product-by-Process Claims: Lessons in Claim Construction and Inherency from Restem LLV v. Jadi...

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

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

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

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms Findings Of Non-Obviousness And Infringement Of Method Of Treatment Patent Claiming Dosing Regimen For...

A&O Shearman on

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

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

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

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Limits Reliance on Provisional Priority Date Under Section 102(e)(1)

On March 24, the Federal Circuit held in In re Riggs that for a published non-provisional patent application to be prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) based on an earlier provisional filing date, all citations to...more

DLA Piper

Federal Circuit Refines Obviousness Framework for Drug and Biologic Dosing Regimens

DLA Piper on

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was unpatentable due to obviousness-type double patenting. The court found...more

Jones Day

Provisionals’ Disclosures Must Fully Support an Issued Claim for Pre-AIA Priority

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | March 2025

Knobbe Martens on

Limits of Inherent Anticipation in Product-by-Process Claims - In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2054, the Federal Circuit held that inherency in product-by-process claims requires the prior art to inevitably...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Detour Ahead: New Approach to Assessing Prior Art Rejections Under § 102(e)

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a more demanding test for determining whether a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application is considered prior art under pre-America...more

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

The Federal Circuit Opines on a Motivation to Combine

The Federal Circuit’s holding in United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. PNC Bank N.A., No. 2023-2171, 2025 WL 339662 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2025) reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision finding no motivation to combine....more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending March 28, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., No. 2023-1841 (Fed. Cir. (E.D. Wis.) Mar. 24, 2025). Opinion by Stark, joined by Lourie and Prost. Belanger sued Wash World for infringement of a patent related to a spray type car wash...more

Lathrop GPM

Significant Federal Circuit Decision Redefines Prior Art Requirements

Lathrop GPM on

Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: In re: Riggs

In re: Riggs, Appeal No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) Our Case of the Week explores the power of an examiner to request a rehearing after the Board has entered a decision on an application. The case also relates to...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Infringement Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This article continues our analysis of over 89,000 patents to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts litigation outcomes. Last month we discussed how prosecution length impacts...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Healthtech Patents: What Alivecor v. Apple Means for AI-Powered Innovation

Fenwick & West LLP on

A major Federal Circuit ruling just sent a clear message to AI-driven healthtech companies: AI alone won’t get you a patent....more

McDermott Will & Emery

When “It’s Obvious” Just Isn’t Enough: Challenger’s Burden to Prove Obviousness

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision that a patent was not obvious because the petitioner failed to show sufficient support of obviousness based on prior art. AMP...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit: Private Sale by Inventor Does Not Trigger Prior Art Exception Under the AIA

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is...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

782 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 32

"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