The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR based on issue preclusion where a district court had dismissed a complaint finding the patent claims subject-matter ineligible. The patentee had...more
The Eastern District of Texas has rejected a plaintiff’s argument that if a patent owner concedes in an inter partes review (IPR) that a prior art reference discloses all elements of a patent claim, the reference necessarily...more
An accused infringer in a district court case could not take advantage of a prior claim construction ruling from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding involving unasserted claims of the same patent. The Patent Trial and...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
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently held that a certificate of correction fixing an error in a patent’s claim of priority did not apply retroactively in light of an already issued final written...more
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that statutory disclaimer terminates the case or controversy between the parties in an infringement suit as to those claims, and immediately deprives the district court of the authority to take...more
9/9/2019
/ Appeals ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Disclaimers ,
Judicial Authority ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Vacated
On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted patent owner’s motion to amend on the basis that the totality of the record did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the...more
8/20/2019
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit has ruled that neither the exhaustion nor permissible repair doctrines allow manufacture of new replacement components covered by design patents.
The Automotive Body Parts Association (ABPA) sued Ford...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding nonobvious the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “’209 Patent”), which are directed to a method of treating cancer.
The claims...more
5/13/2019
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Method Claims ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Nonobvious ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
The Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review (IPR) decision holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) incorrectly applied the standard for an inventor to prove diligence in reducing the invention to...more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
1/28/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Generic Drugs ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Standing
The Federal Circuit has affirmed the final written decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) panel in six related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Board held in those proceedings that (1) a...more
In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) instructing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to reweigh the evidence in a manner that placed the ultimate...more
9/24/2018
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Proof ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Agreements ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Remand ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Video Games
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of standing an appeal filed by an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner of a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held two...more
8/30/2018
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Dismissals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Prior Art ,
Standing
In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more
11/3/2017
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Reexamination ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Motion for Judgment ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO ,
Willful Infringement
A judge in the Northern District of California has enjoined a group of defendants from selling a laboratory DNA sequencing machine. The plaintiff first asserted the patent against one defendant in litigation in the District...more