The so-called “Lead Compound Analysis” is the primary legal framework for assessing chemical obviousness. Despite the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) initial apparent reluctance to operate under this framework,...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski]
Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
3/7/2022
/ §315(e) ,
35 U.S.C. § 285 ,
America Invents Act ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
Biotechnology ,
Chemical Compounds ,
Claim Construction ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Credibility ,
Declaration ,
Depositions ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Exceptional Case ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventors ,
Life Sciences ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Orange Book ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Cancellation ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Pre-AIA Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Section 112 ,
Section 325(d) ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Testimony ,
USPTO ,
USPTO Pilot Program ,
Vacated ,
Written Descriptions
In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written...more
1/12/2017
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Burden of Production ,
Dismissals ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standing