4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Jones Day Talks: PTAB's Busy Docket and What's Changed After SAS Institute
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
Compiling Successful IP Solutions for Software Developers
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
On March 18, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memorandum to patent examiners addressing means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations and how to clearly articulate, in the prosecution...more
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials recently reiterated to all patent examiners that they must provide clear, consistent analysis regarding means-plus-function and step-plus-function limitations. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s indefiniteness determination, finding that two claim limitations – one broad and one narrow – were not contradictory since it was possible to meet...more
A new year means new Federal Circuit decisions to analyze. Our case of the week recounts an interesting saga of companies copying each other’s patent applications to provoke an interference. And if that’s not enough to grab...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to institute inter partes review, finding there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioners would prevail on their obviousness challenges. In rendering its decision, the...more
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious - In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
Reversing a district court finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred by ignoring unrebutted evidence that the challenged claim...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) patentability decisions after determining that the Board did not err in construing multiple terms within the challenged patents....more
On January 3, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., the Federal Circuit found written description support for a negative claim limitation, even though the negative claim limitation did not have...more
The Federal Circuit is holding its first argument session of 2022 this week (with a return to telephonic arguments in light of the Omicron variant). In this post, we take a look back at how the Court closed out 2021 and...more
The International Trade Commission can more readily provide injunctive relief against an adjudged infringer than a district court, under appropriate conditions (i.e., with regard to an infringing product or a product made by...more
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. ITC - Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the ITC. Summary: Patentees cannot escape the bounds of their claims by promoting oversimplified characterizations of those claims....more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in University of Massachusetts et al. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0868-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 20, 2021), the Court granted Defendant L’Oréal’s...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed Bayer’s patent infringement victory related to Baxalta’s biologic product, Adynovate. Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., No. 2019-2418, 2021 WL 771700 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2021). At the...more
Stipulating to infringement after a contrary claim construction is a conventional stratagem for a losing party to have a final judgment that can be challenged before the Federal Circuit. The risk of course, is that if the...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
Claims Covering Human Engineering That Exploit a Naturally-Occurring Phenomenon Are Patent Eligible - In Illumina, Inc. V. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Appeal No. 19-1419, the Federal Circuit modified its earlier decision...more
NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Summary: The Federal Circuit affirmed a construction of...more
277-1 Federal Circuit Affirms District Court Claim Construction in Foundation Pile Patent Infringement Dispute - The United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit recently upheld the Central District of...more
Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more
The Federal Circuit yesterday, in a decision likely to be celebrated by holders of standard essential patents (“SEPs”), found that it is appropriate for the jury to decide essentiality of a patent, rather than the judge...more
The Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed a case where common sense was used to supply a missing element in a § 103 obviousness analysis. On June 26, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D...more
PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATION, LLC v. APPLE INC - Before Reyna, Taranto and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution history evidence need not rise to the level of disclaimer to...more
In an appeal stemming from the denial of a patent application under § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by holding that the claims’ preambles were claim...more
IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS LLC v. GILEAD SCIENCES INC. Before Prost, Newman, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Synthesizing and screening tens of thousands of...more