News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Patent Invalidity

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

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp.

Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision On Unpatentability, With The PTO Stepping In After Appellee Withdrew

A&O Shearman on

On April 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision finding all challenged claims of Sage Products, LLC’s patents anticipated based on...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

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

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

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

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 201: The Risks and Rewards of Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements For A Prior Art Reference’s Entitlement To The Filing Date Of A Provisional Application To...

A&O Shearman on

On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application...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

Jones Day

Motivation to Modify Prior Art Need Not Be the Same as Challenged Patent

Jones Day on

Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the...more

Saul Ewing LLP

What Intellectual Property Owners Need to Know Today About Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Saul Ewing LLP on

What You Need to Know: • Instead of filing multiple applications claiming different aspects of an invention but not sharing a single priority chain, patentees should strive to file highly comprehensive applications that...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more

Jones Day

Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

Jones Day on

On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...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

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

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – February 2025

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...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

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Provides Further Clarity on Issues Surrounding Patent Validity in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v....

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the validity of a pharmaceutical patent concerning the patent’s written description. Following an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the...more

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

Unclear Analysis at the PTAB Leads to Confusion at the Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2023-1636, 2024 WL 5114204 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) concerns an obviousness determination based on a motivation to combine....more

Haug Partners LLP

Federal Circuit Addresses Two Key Requirements of On-Sale Bar of Pre-AIA Section 102(b)

Haug Partners LLP on

The Federal Circuit’s recent precedential decision in Crown Packaging Technology Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. is noteworthy because it discusses two key requirements of the on-sale bar prong of pre-AIA section...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

35 U.S.C. § 112 in IPR: I know you cannot use it to invalidate a claim, but how about breaking the priority chain?

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

It is well established that “a petitioner in an inter partes review … is not permitted to assert a ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Dexcowin Golabl, Inc. v. Aribex, Inc., IPR2016-00436, Paper 12 (PTAB July 7,...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

346 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 14

"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