News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding › Obviousness

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.... more +
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.    less -
Volpe Koenig

“Settled Expectations” as the New Gatekeeper for PTAB Discretionary Denials: Why Late-Stage IPRs Are Getting Harder to File

Volpe Koenig on

When Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in Dabico v. AXA Power IPR2025-00408  Paper 21, much of the commentary focused on the result....more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Discretionary Denials in Action: iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc.

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook on

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more

Volpe Koenig

When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn

Volpe Koenig on

Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more

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

Latest Director Discretionary Denial Decision in iRhythm Provides Valuable Insights

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

On June 6, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Stewart issued a decision in iRhythm Tech. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (and four related IPRs), which granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. This is...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Undetectable Amount of Magnification IS Magnification

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Federal Circuit Defines Scope of IPR Estoppel

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

The Rise of System Art: The Federal Circuit Shelters System Art From IPR Estoppel

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Prior art patents and publications have long been the primary source for anticipation and obviousness assertions by defendants in IP litigation. System art—an actual system or device—is a less common source of prior art due...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit rendered an opinion in Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. surrounding U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688 (the '688 patent").  This marks the second time that the Federal Circuit has weighed...more

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

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

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

PTAB Issues Additional Information on New Pre-Institution Discretionary Briefing

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

On April 25, 2025, the USPTO issued additional information in response to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum issued on March 26, 2025. As discussed in our...more

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

Recent Updates at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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

Recent changes at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have brought uncertainty to inter partes review and post-grant review practitioners before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These procedural and...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analysis Finding Product-by-Process Claim Narrowed During Prosecution Valid Over Prior Art

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

In a precedential opinion issued on March 4, 2025, in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No, 23-2054, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction and ruling that product-by-process...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Vacates Claim Construction But Upholds PTAB’s Determination of Obviousness and Motivation to...

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc. In HD Silicon Solutions LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed an appeal from the USPTO Patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2023-1475, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) Our Case of the Week is a high-stakes appeal from an inter partes review concerning a patent titled “Camera Based...more

Jones Day

Two Separate Analyses: Nonobviousness vs Enablement

Jones Day on

Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement.  Duration Media...more

Knobbe Martens

Every Word Counts: Specification Naming Conventions Can Limit Claim Scope

Knobbe Martens on

A patent’s specification established a naming convention that applied to terms in the patent’s claims. Microchip Technology filed an IPR, arguing all claims of HD Silicon Solutions’ patent were invalid. The challenged patent...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Clarifies Timing Issues Associated with Pre-AIA Patent Applications in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung...

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. This case addresses the date on which a pre-AIA published patent application obtains its status as...more

McDermott Will & Emery

It’s Obvious: Erroneous Claim Construction Can Be Harmless

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination even though it found the Board had improperly construed a claim term, because the Court found the error harmless...more

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

2024 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends – 2024 PTAB Case Highlights

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

Abuse of Process and/or Sanctions – 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 - Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC, IPR2021-00847, IPR2021-00850, IPR2021-00854, IPR2021-00857 & IPR2021-00860 - Decision...more

Knobbe Martens

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Has Jurisdiction Over IPRs Challenging Expired Patents

Knobbe Martens on

Before Lourie, Dyk, and Hughes. Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents because the review of such patents...more

Irwin IP LLP

2024 Patent Landscape -- Year In Review

Irwin IP LLP on

Over the course of 2024, the patent law landscape has continued to evolve as significant court rulings and emerging technologies shaped its direction. During 2024, activities at the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, various...more

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Apple Prevails and Federal Circuit Puts Expert Testimony in the Spotlight

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, a case that focuses on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, claim breadth and the...more

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

2024 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

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

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more

Hudnell Law Group

Published but not Public? Federal Circuit Confirms Published Patent Applications Count as Prior Art from Filing Date in IPRs.

Hudnell Law Group on

On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025), addressing whether a...more

142 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide