News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation CAFC Patent Trial and Appeal Board

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Eye Therapies LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more

Knobbe Martens

Not Lost in Translation: Federal Circuit Clarifies Application of the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE: VETEMENTS GROUP AG - Before Prost, Wallach, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. A party opposing application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents has the burden to show that the ordinary...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Implicit And Incorrect Claim Construction Of “Between 1 And 10”

A&O Shearman on

On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Provides Clarity on Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in IPRs

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Scope of IPR Estoppel

WilmerHale on

In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC: Federal Circuit Resolves the IPR Estoppel Split

In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Riggs Decision: 35 USC 102(e) Prior Art Requires Written Description Support...

Goodwin on

On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot be the Basis of an IPR Ground

Jones Day on

Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more

8 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