Latest Posts › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Share:

USPTO Proposes Harmonizing Claim Construction Standard In PTAB Proceedings

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice of proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register (83 Fed. Reg. 21221) today, May 9, 2018, which would provide a change to the claim construction standard used in Inter...more

Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC (2018)

Earlier today, April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC that inter partes review proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the...more

Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pharmacosmos A/S (Fed. Cir. 2018)

Which parties to an IPR proceeding have standing to either appeal or participate in an appeal from an adverse final written decision by the Board? The Federal Circuit had previously held that a petitioner that did not...more

PTAB Releases Orange Book-Listed Patent Study

Pharmaceutical patent owners have been one of the more vocal groups decrying the creation and existence of inter partes reviews and other PTAB post-issuance proceedings. And for good reason. Congress enacted the...more

Motions to Amend at the PTAB after Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal – What’s a Patent Owner to Do?

In 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act and created new mechanisms to challenge issued claims at the Patent Office. The goal was to expeditiously resolve issues of patent validity in response to the public outcry...more

Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc)

On Monday, January 8, 2018, the en banc Federal Circuit held in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. that PTAB time-bar determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) are appealable because they do not fall within the scope of the...more

PTAB Motions to Amend Post-Aqua Products -- Chief Judge Ruschke Issues Guidance

On November 21, 2017, PTAB Chief Judge Ruschke issued a memorandum entitled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products." As we reported at the time, the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products determined that the PTAB...more

Oil States Preview Take II -- Just What Did the Supreme Court Hold in McCormick Harveting Machine v. Aultman?

Last week, we provided a preview of the Supreme Court case Oil States Energy Services, LLC. v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC. that will be argued on November 27, 2017. The underlying case has received a lot of attention, so it...more

Supreme Court Preview -- Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC

On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that were ultimately appealed from IPR Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB. The first of these, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's...more

CAFC Shifts the Burden for IPR Claim Amendments from the Patent Owner to the Petitioner

In Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB, in ruling whether to allow claim amendments in an IPR proceeding, can no longer place the burden to establish the...more

Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal (Fed. Cir. 2017)

More Than a Mere Academic Exercise - On October 4, 2017, in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a highly fractured en banc Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB can no longer place the burden of establishing the patentability...more

Novartis AG v. Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In inter partes review proceedings, is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board required to take into account a final district court determination of non-obviousness of the same claims based on the...more

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 15, Issue 1

In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes...more

Post-Grant Review Estoppel – Looking Forward by Looking Back at Estoppel in Inter-Partes and Covered-Business-Method Review

In 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) established new post-issuance procedures for challenging the validity of a granted patent before the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”). Inter partes...more

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Can any petitioner appeal a Board's final written decision from an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding? Contrary to the language of 35 U.S.C. § 141(c) which permits any party "who is dissatisfied with" the...more

IPR Update -- Is Reviewability of Time-Bar Institution Decisions Headed En Banc?

"It appears to me that en banc consideration is warranted." -- Judge Taranto (concurring in Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp.). "I write separately, however, to note that I believe the Supreme Court's...more

Biotechnology Innovation Organization's Amicus Brief for In re Aqua Products, Inc.

On Friday, December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR proceedings. ...more

In re NuVasive, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit remanded a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") because the Board invalidated certain claims in a patent without providing adequate notice or opportunity to the...more

In re Aqua Products, Inc. -- CAFC Grants Rehearing En Banc to Consider PTAB Motions to Amend

On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR...more

AbbVie v. Amgen: The Litigation Phase for a HUMIRA® Biosimilar Begins

To date, Amgen has been the reference product sponsor for many biosimilar applications. Correspondingly, Amgen has been the Plaintiff in many of the litigations that have been based on the provisions of the Biosimilar Price...more

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (2016) -- Question 2 -- PTAB Shenanigans and Reviewability

The saga of the first-filed IPR petition (IPR2012-00001) came to a close today when the Supreme Court decided the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee case. We have been following this case ever since the PTAB issued its...more

BIO International Convention 2016 Preview

U.S. Patent Practice – the PTAB, Federal Courts, and Patent Eligibility - The 2016 BIO International Convention has already begun in San Francisco, but most of the sessions and forums get underway beginning on Tuesday,...more

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Have you ever mixed up the obviousness determinations of "motivation to combine" and "reasonable expectation of success"? If so, you are apparently not alone -- the Federal Circuit recently faulted the Patent Trial and...more

Of Patent Trolls and Hot Dog Stands -- The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee

Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee appeal (Supreme Court docket number 15-466). The Court was considering two issues related to the recently implemented IPR...more

58 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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