AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more
In the precedential decision of Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that dismissed a...more
Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more
8 Puma Biotechnology is the latest victim of standing requirements in patent cases that continue to wreak havoc on plaintiffs’ ability to recover a full measure of damages. In Puma Biotechnology, Inc. v. AstraZeneca...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more
MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more
We recently reported on bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D) and John Cornyn (R) to significantly revamp certain features of the America Invents Act (AIA), ten years after its debut. This proposed...more
On April 7 2021, the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 20-1561, — F.3d —-, 2021 WL 1287437, *1, *5 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2021), held that Apple failed to establish standing to appeal inter partes review (IPR)...more
The Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated handed down a decision on April 7, 2021 that provides guidance on the determination of standing for patent licensees who wish to contest the validity of a patent or...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - ..WI-LAN INC. v. SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION [OPINION] (2020-1041, April 6, 2021) (DYK, TARANTO, and STOLL) - Dyk, J. Affirming related district court judgments holding...more
On April 7, 2021, the Federal Circuit decided Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., where it held that Apple lacked standing to appeal the final written decisions in two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the U.S. Patent...more
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more
272-1 Federal Circuit Holds a New Invalidity Challenge at the ITC is not a Change in Condition that Enables the ITC to review the Validity of a Patent or Rescind an Exclusion Order - The Federal Circuit (Court) recently...more
The Federal Circuit continued its explication of the standing issue for unsuccessful petitioners in inter partes review (see "Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020)") in Pfizer Inc. v....more
Addressing the issue of Article III standing in an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal because the party appealing failed to establish an...more
Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Appeal No. 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2020). Argentum and other petitioners filed IPRs against Novartis’ patent related to methods of treating...more
AVX Corporation, a company that manufactures and sells a variety of electronic components including capacitors, petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Presidio Components, Inc.’s patent directed to single-layer ceramic...more
Again addressing the question of appellate standing for inter partes review (IPR) decisions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an IPR petitioner did not show a sufficient injury to confer Article III...more
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Reyna, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: A petitioner who loses an IPR must proffer specific evidence of competitive...more
The Federal Circuit recently tightened the standing requirements for an IPR appeal in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 18-1106, 2019 WL 2079178 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019). AVX previously challenged the validity of...more
In past decisions, the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner appealing a PTAB’s final written decision upholding the patentability of challenged claims after an AIA trial must establish Article III standing. In...more
AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR), finding that the challenger lacked appellate standing because it had terminated its attempts to develop the infringing...more
RPX petitioned for inter partes review of ChanBond’s ’822 patent. The Board instituted the IPR and determined that RPX did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable. RPX appealed the final written decision to the...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more