News & Analysis as of

CAFC United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Estoppel Principles in Patent Office Proceedings

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

On July 26, 2024, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld and expounded on the estoppel provision set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). The CAFC confirmed that the Patent...more

Baker Donelson

A Baker's Dozen of Patent Law Developments for 2024

Baker Donelson on

The world of intellectual property law is always changing, and it can be difficult to keep up. Here are 13 developments in patent law so far in 2024 to help you stay in the know....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2023 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

Not surprisingly, 2023 was another notable year for design rights around the globe. However, nowhere more than the U.S. did we see court decisions that will, in the case of one, and could in the case of another, have...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

In Qualcomm v. Apple, Federal Circuit Rules Out Applicant Admitted Prior Art As the “Basis” for Inter Partes Review

On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Supreme Court’s Denial of Apple and Mylan’s Petitions Leaves NHK/Fintiv Rule in Place

On January 18, the Supreme Court denied petitions for writs of certiorari from both Apple and Mylan Laboratories. Each company sought to challenge the NHK/Fintiv framework that was developed by the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Arthrex's Fallout - How is the Supreme Court Decision Affecting Appeals?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The Supreme Court rendered its decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew back in June and now the impact of that decision is becoming more clear. Arthrex had challenged the constitutionality of the appointment of administrative...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Arguing Arthrex – Smith & Nephew and the U.S. Urge the Court To Deem Patent Judges Inferior Officers

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Opening briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States have been filed with the Supreme Court in the Arthrex cases which, as previously discussed, granted the petitions for certiorari from Arthrex, Inc., Smith & Nephew...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

CBM Review: A Postmortem

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Covered business method (CBM) review is scheduled to end on September 15 this year. Part of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act, CBM review was envisioned as a transitional tool for accused infringers to challenge weak...more

Jones Day

Timing Of Arthrex Remands Remains Fuzzy

Jones Day on

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) unopposed motion to stay its mandate issued in Arthrex. The USPTO filed its motion seeking a 90 day stay...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Patent Post-Grant Proceedings Continue Despite Covid-19 Disruptions

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have made adjustments in their practices to accommodate the new realities of COVID-19 and social distancing, but...more

Polsinelli

The PTAB and the Arthrex Decision: A Constitutional Question

Polsinelli on

The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution1 provides that “principal officers” of the United States must be appointed by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate. “Inferior officers,” on the other hand,...more

A&O Shearman

Intellectual Property Newsletter - January 2018

A&O Shearman on

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its latest newsletter. The newsletter addresses a number of current IP topics, ranging from the constitutionality and judicial reviewability of inter partes review to...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

CAFC Vacates USPTO Single Reference Obviousness Rejection For Inadequate Showing Of Expectation of Success

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a split decision with Judge Lourie dissenting, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness rejection that had been affirmed in an ex parte appeal to the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The decision was rendered in In...more

Morgan Lewis

Highest Patent Court Narrows Scope of Covered Business Review

Morgan Lewis on

A patent does not qualify for “covered business method” review if its claims are only incidental to a financial activity. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently decided that a claimed method (in...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Magnum Offers New Path for Challenging AIA Decisions: Burden of Production

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On July 25, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held in In re Magnum Oil Tools International (Newman, O’Malley & Chen) that the burden of production to show unobviousness does not shift to a patent owner...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Sides With PTAB in Inter Partes Review Appeal

In a decision imparting more certainty to the Post Grant Review process, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the Patent and Trademark Office’s (the “PTO’s”)...more

16 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