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
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
On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
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
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
ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more
A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance of the Patent Office’s rulemaking and enforcement. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) The Federal Circuit’s...more
On October 26, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Monterey Research, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. affirmed a pair of final written decisions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that...more
This case addresses the ability of a petitioner in an IPR to present new evidence in a reply brief, particularly where the patent owner proposes a new claim construction in its patent owner response....more
A perennial challenge in patenting is to both cover your product and block design-arounds. It is understandably frustrating to incur the expense and disclosure requirements of the patent process only to find that a...more
Senior Circuit Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C....more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response - In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
If you’ve ever wondered how they keep implanted medical devices from becoming dead weight when the batteries run out, this recent Federal Circuit decision addresses one solution—wireless charging through the skin! It also...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
On August 7, in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was required to consider an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s arguments that were raised for the...more
The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions in August, reminding parties in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings to refrain from sandbagging and raise all arguments at the first opportunity. In Axonics v....more
Addressing the issue of new claim constructions presented by a patent owner after the institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a petitioner is entitled...more
AXONICS, INC. v. MEDTRONIC, INC. Before Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where a patent owner in an IPR proposes a claim construction for the first time in a patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) obviousness decision after finding that the patent owner failed to explain how its cited extrinsic evidence supported its proposed...more
The Federal Circuit recently held that a Patent Owner could not use disclaimers argued in an IPR proceeding for claim construction within the same IPR proceeding. In CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., Case 20-2262,...more
Repeating a conclusion from an earlier non-precedential opinion in VirnetX, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) need not accept a patent owner’s arguments as a...more
American National Manufacturing Inc. v. Sleep Number Corporation, Appeal Nos. 2021-1321, -1323, -1379, -1382 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) - In an appeal from inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), there are dozens of considerations to bear in mind – from strategically approaching depositions and maximizing expert testimony, to drafting the final say in your...more
Last month, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions that...more
Noting patent owner’s prior litigation statements, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling that a clear and unmistakable disclaimer in the prosecution history affected claim construction...more