4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is revolutionizing the way patents are enforced in Europe, and McDermott’s intellectual property team is here to help you navigate this dynamic landscape. Our Legal Lens on the Unified Patent...more
A recent precedential decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may serve as a warning for those parties who plan on relying on expert declarations in their inter partes reviews (“IPR”). On August 24, 2022, the...more
During an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Ingenico, the PTAB found certain claims from three patents held by IOEngine to be unpatentable. The patents at issue are directed to secure communications for portable devices...more
As the era of biologics and biosimilar litigations heats up in the United States, Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is also taking center stage with the first two biosimilar disputes filed in March and April....more
The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...more
The new year has brought a wave of activity for EYLEA® (aflibercept) biosimilars. Following up on our previous report (EYLEA® (aflibercept) and Soliris® (eculizumab) IPR and BPCIA Litigation Updates, December 31, 2023), in...more
As we settle into 2024, we reflect on the significant legal developments of 2023 that hold potential impact on the biologics and biosimilars market. The following is a recap of some of the top five legal decisions and...more
In the last month, there has been a flurry of activity at the PTAB related to challenges from biosimilar manufacturers related to ustekinumab, aflibercept, and eculizumab patents....more
Patents are increasingly being used to protect innovation in the food technology space. Food technology companies should carefully decide whether to use patents or trade secrets to protect their proprietary assets. ...more
On November 22, 2023, Biocon Biologics Inc. (“Biocon”) submitted a Petition for Inter Partes Review of claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,307 (“the ’307 patent”), assigned to Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”), requesting...more
Sacral neuromodulation stimulates nerves above the tailbone to treat fetal incontinence and related bowel and bladder control issues. After California-based Axonics Inc. (“Axonics”) entered the sacral neuromodulation market...more
In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., Case No. 2021-1981, the Federal Circuit reversed an obviousness determination by the PTAB. At issue was Sanofi’s reissued U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (the ’614 patent),...more
Biologics have become the fastest-growing class of therapeutic compounds. They have provided innovative treatment alternatives for people who suffer from some of the most serious medical conditions known to man. The...more
This recurring feature highlights any new PTAB precedential and/or informative decisions, any new substantive Director review decisions, and any new substantive decisions issued by the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP). The...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION] (2022-1037, 3/13/23) (Newman, Prost, Hughes) - Prost, J. Reversed and remanded in favor of petitioner Intel because the...more
TWO GUNS, BUT ONLY ONE BULLET, OR, ONCE IN IPR, DO NOT SAVE YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR LITIGATION A patent can be challenged in court as a defense to an infringement action or through an administrative proceeding before the U.S....more
On August 16, 2021, the Federal Circuit handed down two rulings related to patents issued to Teva, which involve therapeutic antibodies targeting a calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”). In both cases, the Federal Circuit...more
In Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No 19-civ-4297 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 19, 2021), the parties’ forum selection clause in their non-disclosure agreement did not prevent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) from...more
As 2021 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2020. According to many readers, hot topics included Chinese...more
VIDSTREAM LLC V. TWITTER, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Evidence of a prior art reference’s publication date submitted after an IPR petition may be...more
As previously reported, in February 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued final written decisions in two IPR proceedings initiated by Sanofi challenging the U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 (the ’487 patent) owned by...more
Joining an IPR Triggers IPR Estoppel Only for Instituted Grounds - In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company , Appeal No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit held that a party...more
On September 24, 2020 the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., in which the Federal Circuit addressed whether statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) applies to a party who...more
In a consolidated appeal from the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple, Inc. challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that Voip-Pal.com, Inc.’s patents were not obvious over the prior...more
FACEBOOK, INC., V. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC Before Prost, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review challenges to the Board's joinder...more