News & Analysis as of

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

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 -
Jones Day

USPTO Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on "Settled Expectations"

Jones Day on

Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more

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

Vinson & Elkins LLP

File Early or Risk Denial: iRhythm IPR Institution Denial Underscores the Importance of Filing IPR Petitions Sooner Rather Than...

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On June 6, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision denying institution of five inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions filed by iRhythm, Inc....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

Jones Day

Applying Fintiv to a Parallel ITC Investigation

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)...more

Jones Day

April 2025 Institution Rate Slips Below 45 Percent

Jones Day on

The PTAB has published its monthly statistics wrap up for April 2025. As expected, those statistics show a significant decline in the institution rate compared to the first six months of the fiscal year. In those first six...more

Jones Day

Acting Director Releases First Decisions Under New Bifurcated Process

Jones Day on

On May 16, 2025, USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart released the first four discretionary denial decisions under the PTAB’s new process. Under the new process, the parties separately brief discretionary denial issues...more

Jones Day

Director Review: PTAB Instructed to Allow Narrowly Tailored Discovery Regarding Time Bar

Jones Day on

USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently vacated and remanded three Final Written Decisions from the PTAB.  Semiconductor Components Indus. v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2023-01242, IPR2023-01243, IPR2023-01244, Paper 94...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

Insulin Glargine 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

Kilpatrick

4 Key Takeaways | Recent Changes with Respect to the New Administration

Kilpatrick on

Kilpatrick’s Kris Doyle, David Reed, Kate Klein, and Ditty Shrivastava recently presented at the annual Kilpatrick Intellectual Property Seminar Series on the topic of “Recent Changes with Respect to the New Administration.”...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

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

Key Patent Considerations for Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs)

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

In 1910, German scientist Paul Ehrlich introduced a groundbreaking concept to the world: chemical compounds could be engineered to interact with unique receptors on disease-causing cells while avoiding interaction with...more

Jones Day

PTAB Announces Bifurcated Process for Consideration of Discretionary Denial Issues

Jones Day on

A new interim process for the Director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review(IPR) or a post grant review (PGR) was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary considerations 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: The Federal Circuit Clarifies When Collateral Estoppel Applies Following Inter Partes Review Proceedings in Kroy IP...

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. Overview - The Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding of...more

ArentFox Schiff

Federal Circuit Refuses to Extend IPR Estoppel to Unadjudicated Patent Claims

ArentFox Schiff on

In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 127 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit held that patentees in district court are not collaterally estopped from asserting claims that were not immaterially different...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Rules That Order Of Steps Sometimes Does Matter

Jones Day on

Back in May of 2020, European patent-licensing company Sisvel filed a flurry of lawsuits against a dozen tech companies who had allegedly infringed Sisvel’s portfolio of wireless communication and networking patents. A...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

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

Reexamination of Expired Patents

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

Takeaways - - Expired patents may be eligible for reexamination. - Owner’s options during reexamination of an expired patent are severely limited. Similar to reexamination practice, which has long allowed reexamination...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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab 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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - March...

Venable LLP on

Rituximab 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

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

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Claim Assertion After PTAB Unpatentability Decisions

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP on

On February 10, the Federal Circuit held in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. that a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluding that certain claims are unpatentable does not prevent the...more

346 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 14
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