In an IPR institution decision issued shortly after the USPTO issued interim guidance on discretionary denials, the PTAB held that the petition presented “compelling evidence of unpatentability,” foreclosing a Fintiv...more
A district court recently denied a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the defendant successfully invalidated each claim of the patent at issue during an inter partes review proceeding. The district court...more
In its latest decision in a series of interferences related to the CRISPR gene-editing system, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted priority to The Broad Institute, MIT and Harvard (collectively, “Broad”) for...more
Federal Circuit Judge Dyk, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted summary judgment of no enablement for certain claims covering a genus of antibodies intended to treat blood coagulation...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified that the scope of IPR estoppel in district courts includes prior art grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in a petition for inter partes review (IPR), reversing...more
A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that cancellation of independent claims in an inter partes review (IPR) did not preclude the plaintiff from asserting infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents...more
The PTAB recently denied a motion to correct clerical mistakes under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) because the corrections presented substantive new evidence that would have had a substantial impact on the proceedings and prejudiced...more
The Federal Circuit recently vacated a district court’s construction of the terms “antibody” and “antibody fragment.” The court’s constructions were not consistent with the claim language, and nothing in the specification or...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to add to its complaint claims of induced infringement and enhanced damages based on pre-suit conduct. Specifically, the court held...more
Declaratory judgment (“DJ”) actions have fallen out of favor in patent cases in recent years. In 2011, DJ complaints made up approximately 11 percent of all patent cases filed that year. Last year, they made up less than 5...more
When bringing a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent, careful pleading may allow plaintiffs to avoid the restrictions against later seeking inter partes review (IPR) of that patent, while also...more
- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, that the PTAB’s application of the one-year time limit for petitions for inter partes review, set out in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), is not subject to...more
4/23/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) recently designated two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative, marking its first precedential and informative designations for 2020. In two of the...more
The Federal Circuit recently held certain method of treatment claims patent eligible under step one of Alice, reversing a district court’s judgment on the pleadings. In that same case, the Federal Circuit upheld the district...more
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ordering plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC to pay over $700,000 in fees that accrued...more
A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument that would have expanded inter partes review (IPR) estoppel seemingly beyond the plain reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The plaintiff had...more
On January 28, 2020, the Northern District of Alabama granted-in-part a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff could not recover damages based on a theory of lost profits because the plaintiff...more
On January 15, 2020, the United States and China signed a Phase 1 trade agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement addresses a broad range of economic issues including intellectual property, agriculture, financial markets,...more
Medical device and diagnostics companies and laboratories should anticipate significant legal, regulatory and market changes in 2020 that will have a lasting impact on the industry. From revisions to how the government...more
1/8/2020
/ Acquisitions ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Biotechnology ,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ,
CFIUS ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
Digital Health ,
EU ,
Export Controls ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ,
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ,
Innovation ,
Life Sciences ,
Machine Learning ,
Medical Devices ,
Mergers ,
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, finding that the PTAB applied the wrong standard when it presumed there was a nexus...more
In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, a district court denied Hulu’s motion to quash a subpoena directed to its trial-supervising in-house attorney. The court agreed that Sound View may question Hulu’s attorney live,...more
12/27/2019
/ Compelled Testimony ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Depositions ,
Hulu ,
Motions to Quash ,
Non-Infringing Alternatives (NIAs) ,
Outside Counsel ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Subpoenas ,
Trial Preparation ,
Unduly Prejudicial ,
Unfair Prejudice ,
Willful Infringement ,
Witnesses
For nearly two decades, the Eastern District of Texas has been a hotbed of patent litigation. Even after the Supreme Court’s 2017 TC Heartland decision narrowed a plaintiff’s venue options, the Eastern District of Texas still...more
A district court in the Western District of Washington denied Adaptics Ltd.’s (“Adaptics”) motion for summary judgment of patent exhaustion, which was based on a theory that an authorized sale by a downstream reseller can...more
4/15/2019
/ Downstream Agreements ,
Manufacturers ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Patent Exhaustion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Resales Agreements ,
Retailers ,
Settlement Agreements ,
Stream of Commerce
A district court in California has granted-in-part a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel. During the pendency of the litigation, Defendants...more
1/14/2019
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two opinions on December 7 that address two unsettled questions relating to obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). These issues are of particular interest to...more
12/12/2018
/ Double Patent ,
Gilead Sciences ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents