News & Analysis as of

Claim Construction Intellectual Property Protection Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Jones Day

Director Vacates Decision Based on Improper Claim Construction

Jones Day on

The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. The...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings

Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims,...more

Jones Day

PTAB Claim Construction May Be Binding In Later Litigation

Jones Day on

In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more

Jones Day

No Requirement to Raise All Arguments in Rehearing Request

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - July 2024 #4

Zyxel Comms. Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, Appeal Nos. 2022-2220, -2250 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2024) Our Case of the Week provided new guidance on amendment proceedings under the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s 2019...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Interpreting the Printed Matter Doctrine in Inter Partes Review

In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed...more

Jones Day

PTAB Denies IPR Petition for Failure to Construe Claims

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently denied 10x Genomics, Inc.’s (Petitioner) IPR petition (IPR2023-01299) against President and Fellows of Harvard College (Patent Owner) challenging claims of U.S. Pat. No. 11,098,303. Patent Owner identified...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – May 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

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

IP Hot Topic: USPTO Publishes Long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Updates to PTAB Practice and Procedure

On April 19, 2024, the USPTO published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that followed its April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The proposed rules package, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: Federal Circuit Finds No Motive to Combine in Laser Projector Patent Case

AEON Law on

The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more

Jones Day

Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv

Jones Day on

On March 7, 2024, the PTAB denied institution in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024) (“Decision”). The PTAB denied institution on two separate grounds:...more

Troutman Pepper

EDVA Judge Finds Driver Scheduling Patents Invalid

Troutman Pepper on

In a lengthy and detailed opinion, EDVA Judge Hannah Lauck has dismissed a suit alleging infringement of seven patents relating to coordinating drivers to transport vehicles between locations, holding that the patents were...more

Jones Day

Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

Jones Day on

It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, March 2024: PTAB’s Claim Construction of Cooling Patent is Hot Issue, SCOTUS Won’t Hear IPR Joinder Challenge

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Cooling Patent Restored by Federal Circuit Over PTAB’s Claim Construction - ...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Affirms Claim Construction and How It Applies

Jones Day on

In Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed two PTAB decisions in IPRs filed by Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PacBio) that challenged a...more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): A Trio of Claim Construction Cases

This year we are covering three claim construction cases from the Federal Circuit—one coming from the Board and the two from district court. Taken together, the cases are a good reminder of the high burden that a party must...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Identifying Protocols by Name May Disclose Sufficient Structure for Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations

In Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al., Nos. 22-1493, 22-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2023), Sierra Wireless challenged claims 1-10 of Sisvel’s U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 (“the ’561 patent”) in an inter partes review....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Jager Pro, Inc. v. W-W Manufacturing Co. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2023

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more

Jones Day

Narrow Stipulation Results in Fintiv Denial

Jones Day on

On March 31, 2023, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (“Zhuhai”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,329,352 (“the ’352 Patent”), assigned to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd....more

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

USPTO Confirms Different Frameworks for Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Prior-Art Determinations

On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2023

Knobbe Martens on

Substantial Evidence in Determining Obviousness - In Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc, Appeal No. 22-1335, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB’s finding on obviousness is supported by substantial evidence that a skilled...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Decision Based on an Overly Narrow Claim Construction

In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Confirms PTAB Standard of Review

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit in Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, and Stark) affirmed a PTAB decision finding anticipated and/or obvious certain claims of two patents directed...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Go With the Flow: “A” Still Means “One or More”

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a claim construction that was adopted during an inter partes review (IPR) because the Patent Trial & Appeal Board erred in construing the contested limitation as...more

66 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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