Latest Posts › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Share:

Description Prescription

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA V. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For drug patents, adequate written description of a broad genus...more

Once You’re In, You’re In, Amending Claims Addressing an Instituted Ground Allows for More Unrelated Amendments

AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION [OPINION]- PRECEDENTIAL - Before Stoll, Schall, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-00497...more

IPR estoppel “under an unusual set of facts”

Before Stoll, Schall, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas....more

Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious

HOYT AUGUSTUS FLEMING V. CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION - Before Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A claim is obvious where “the proposed combination of [the...more

No Standing in IPR Appeal for Sublicensee’s Speculative Royalty-Based Injuries

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more

Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing...more

The Obviousness of Preamble Limitations Can Be a Real Headache for Patent Challengers

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS  - Before Lourie, Bryson and O’Malley.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In claims for methods of using apparatuses or compositions, statements of...more

Presumption of Nexus Between Claims and Commercial Products May Not Apply When Unclaimed Features Are Critical

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY - Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and O’MALLEY. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The presumption of nexus analysis requires the fact finder to consider the...more

Obviousness in View of Canceled Claims

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY v. BAXTER CORPORATION ENGLEWOOD - Before Prost, Clevenger, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent that has issued and subsequently been canceled may be...more

Applying the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the Claim in Light of the Specification, Federal Circuit Revives Claims in...

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC v. SNYDERS HEART VALVE LLC - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in...more

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Preclude Reliance on Invalidity Decision

HOLOGIC, INC. v. MINERVA SURGICAL, INC. Before Wallach, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appeals from the United States District Court District of Delaware. Summary: The doctrine of assignor estoppel precludes an assignor from...more

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The section 315(b) time-bar for IPRs applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement...more

12 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