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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
Federal Circuit Holds That the Preamble of Jepson-Style Claims Must Be Supported by an Adequate Written Description - U.S. patent claims have a preamble, and, in most cases, the preamble is not limiting. Jepson-style...more
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgement of noninfringement, finding that the lower court had improperly construed the claim term “pull cord.” The district court had erroneously limited...more
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
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed that defendant Alkem’s proposed generic antibiotic did not...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
IN RE: XENCOR, INC. Before Hughes, Stark, and Schroeder (sitting by designation). Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. To provide adequate written description for a Jepson claim,...more
SIERRA WIRELESS, ULC V. SISVEL S.P.A. Before Moore, Schall, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board erred by finding method-claim steps connected by “and” to be conditional and by never...more
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
In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 2023-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision holding that U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 (“the ’176 patent”) was not inherently...more
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