Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the private but non-confidential sale of thousands of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding that the claims at issue were either invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 as unsupported by written...more
As any PTAB practitioner knows, the possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in district court is a significant risk that must be considered when filing an IPR. Section 315(e)(2) prevents a petitioner, following...more
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
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
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1532, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) In this week’s case of the week, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed existing precedent that in inter partes review proceedings before...more
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March...more
Last year, in our inaugural issue of “The Year in Review,” we reported that since the landmark jury verdict in the IP litigation between Apple and Samsung in 2012, which awarded more than $1B to Apple for infringement of...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...more
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
In General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00007-RWS, ECF No. 128 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to strike invalidity defenses as barred by IPR estoppel for...more
In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s holding that joinder petitioner Hewlett Packard (“HP”) (1) could have tried to raise new grounds in its...more
Last month’s newsletter discussed Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, where patent owner Alacritech appealed a final written decision (FWD) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (IPR)...more
Common Sense Prevails - B/E Aerospace, Inc. appealed a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found certain claims of B/E's aircraft lavatory-related patents obvious. B/E contended that...more
Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, patent applicants (and with the advent of inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, patentees) have found it difficult to overcome...more
Campbell Soup petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Gamon’s design patents D612,646 and D621,645. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the IPR and determined that Campbell Soup did not establish...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
IN RE: IPR LICENSING, INC., - Before O’Malley, Newman, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Establishing a motivation to combine two references for an obviousness determination in an IPR...more
This week, the Supreme Court left open the question of Article III standing with regards to appealing a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) that is favorable to the patent owner. On...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more
A preliminary decision in the District Court of Delaware introduces the possibility that a patentee’s victory on assignor estoppel in the district court could quash a co-pending IPR proceeding at the PTAB. Assignor estoppel...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more