News & Analysis as of

Section 103 Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Litigation

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Humira® (adalimumab) / Amjevita™ (adalimumab-atto) / Cyltezo® (adalimumab-adbm) / Hyrimoz™ (adalimumab-adaz) /...

Venable LLP on

Adalimumab 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

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries

We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Industry Praise of Consumer Hair Product Sufficient to Rebut Bald Obviousness Allegations

In a recent inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on compelling evidence of secondary considerations to hold all challenged claims not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, the...more

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more

Knobbe Martens

A Standalone Obviousness Reference Must Be Enabling to Invalidate

Knobbe Martens on

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES V GENERAL ELECTRIC - Before Lourie, Chen, and Hughes. Summary: Unrebutted evidence of non-enablement is sufficient to overcome an invalidity challenge based on a standalone §103 reference....more

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

Substitute Claims Proposed in an IPR are Subject to Patent Eligibility Review Under Section 101

In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc. (July 22, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) may consider, in its review of substitute claims proposed in an inter partes review...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

“Anything Goes” – Federal Circuit Says PTAB Can Use Any Means to Knock Out Substitute Claims (Uniloc v. Hulu: Part 2)

Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims.  The appeal raises issues of finality...more

Haug Partners LLP

Uniloc v. Hulu - Federal Circuit Clash over Scope of PTAB Review of Substitute Claims

Haug Partners LLP on

WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more

Knobbe Martens

Substitute Claims in IPR Are Subject to Section 101 Challenges

Knobbe Martens on

UNILOC 2017 LLC v. HULU, LLC - Before O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. O’Malley dissenting. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board did not exceed its statutory authority in an inter partes...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Addresses Indefiniteness and Mean-Plus-Function Claiming in Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the PTAB

The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Cannot Institute IPR on PTAB-Created Grounds

Knobbe Martens on

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. GOOGLE LLC - Before Prost, Newman, and Moore. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board can institute IPR only on grounds raised in a petition. Additionally, the Board...more

Knobbe Martens

Missing Component Does Not Preclude a Prior Art Reference from Being a Primary Reference in a Design Case

Knobbe Martens on

CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY v. GAMON PLUS, INC. Before Prost, Newman and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A proper primary reference can have slight differences in design if, in light of overall...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2019: Court's Infringement Indefiniteness Does Not Dictate Validity Indefiniteness at PTAB

In IPR2018-00272, the Board denied a motion to terminate brought by a Patent Owner who argued that a district court’s finding of indefiniteness required termination of the PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent. 9,393,208....more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Clarifies when Live Testimony at Oral Argument Is Permitted, and Motion to Amend Practice

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2019 #4

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co., Appeal Nos. 2018-1257, et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2019) - The Federal Circuit issued only one precedential patent decision this week. The short,...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - February 2019

Knobbe Martens on

PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more

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

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more

Knobbe Martens

Realtime Data, LLC. v. Iancu

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Taranto, Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB is not required to make any finding regarding a motivation to combine two references when it...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

The PTAB Holds That Testimony Concerning Customer Statements and Their State of Mind Constitutes Hearsay

On September 22, 2017, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision regarding claims directed to a switching regulator comprising a power switch and a control circuit. The PTAB found...more

21 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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