Artificial intelligence is transforming industries and redefining how innovation is created, deployed, and protected. As companies accelerate development of generative models and machine-learning systems, questions around...more
Attend ACI's 8th Annual Summit on Life Sciences IP Due Diligence, and join IP counsel from across the life sciences industry to benchmark your diligence strategies, strengthen portfolio valuation approaches, and stay ahead of...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in In re: Xencor, Inc. Xencor, Inc. (“Xencor”) filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/803,690 (the “’690 Application”), which was directed to a method for treating...more
Faster office actions, improved prior art searches, and a more consistent application of the law — these will be hallmarks of the future of patent examination at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to increased...more
In Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Synthego Corp., the Federal Circuit addressed the difference between the enablement standard for an anticipatory prior art reference (under 35 U.S.C. § 102) and that for an applicant/patentee’s own...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to...more
A patent applicant dissatisfied by an patent examiner's rejection of that applicant's claims in ex parte prosecution has recourse by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under 35 U.S.C. § 134, and to the Federal...more
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was...more
Mitek Systems Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, Appeal No. 2023-1687 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the limits of declaratory judgment jurisdiction for a...more
Patent claims reciting compounds where at least one group of a compound genus is defined by its function are common. For example, familiar claim terms such as “chelating moiety,” “linker,” and “binding moiety” describe a...more
On April 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. (No. 23-2312), issued on April 30, 2025, upholding the invalidation of Finitiv Inc.’s (“Finitiv”) mobile wallet patents related...more
Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more
At ACI’s 23rd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents, you can expect informational overviews and thorough discussion of every facet of the industry. In a time of major legislative, regulatory, and judicial change, you can't...more
We are excited to present the second edition of Sheppard Mullin’s “Year in Review” report, which provides a comprehensive summary of the key precedential Federal Circuit decisions related to patent law in 2024. Building on...more
Synopsis: In a case with implications for the litigious molecular diagnostics space and written description law, Chief Judge Connolly of the District of Delaware reversed a $96 million jury verdict in favor of Natera,...more
The concept of the "person of ordinary skill in the art" (POSITA) remains pivotal in patent law, particularly in evaluating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and compliance with enablement and written description requirements...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit...more
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2024-1965, -1966, -2082, -2083 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025) Our Case of the Week is a 31-page decision that touches on a variety of issues, including...more
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
Vascular Solutions LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1398 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit evaluated certain heavily litigated claims directed to guide catheters. The patents...more
On March 7, 2024, the PTAB denied institution in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024) (“Decision”). The PTAB denied institution on two separate grounds:...more
We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we...more
Hosted by American Conference Institute, the 20th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes & the 40th Anniversary of the Hatch-Waxman Act returns for another exciting year with curated programming that will take a retrospective look at...more
In light of the 2023 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published guidelines for PTO employees to use, regardless of technology, to ascertain compliance...more