New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as...more
Published Patent Applications Are Prior Art as of the Filing Date, Not the Publication Date - Lynk Labs raises a simple question of statutory interpretation with surprisingly important ramifications: in inter partes review,...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025). The Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the...more
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the challenged patent claims were obvious because a person of ordinary skill...more
The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) clarified the legal standard for correcting obvious type inaccuracies in patent claims, explaining that the view of a skilled person at the filing date is decisive...more
In Lynk Labs, Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit reinforced that patent applications may serve as prior art in IPR proceedings as of their filing date—even where those applications were not published...more
The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., issued on January 2, 2025, overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) factual and legal holdings in the final...more
In re Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan), Appeal Nos. 2023-2218, -2220, -2221 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revived Novartis’s US Patent No. 8,101,659 by reversing the district...more
Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoning regarding a motivation to combine prior...more
Bound to Happen: Inherent Property Leaves No Question of Reasonable Expectation of Success - In Cytiva Bioprocess R&D Ab v. Jsr Corp., Appeal No. 23-2074, the Federal Circuit held that a claim limitation merely reciting an...more
In its first precedential opinion of 2025, Honeywell v. 3G Licensing, No. 2023-1354, the Federal Circuit held that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) needs not to have the same motivation as the inventor in an...more
Honeywell International Inc., et al. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Nos. 2023-1354, -1384, -1407 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 2, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen. Dissenting opinion by Stoll....more
When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” ...more
In Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent No....more
Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal Nos. 2023-1354, -1384, -1407 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review finding of the Patent...more
The ’903 patent, entitled “Correlating Packets In Communications Networks,” discloses a computing system that can identify and correlate packets (“small segments that together make up a larger communication”) received and...more
As 2024 draws to a close, several crucial developments — some aimed at modernizing long-standing legal practices, others addressing emerging challenges — have reached patent law. Originally published in Law360 - December...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. CYTIVA BIOPROCESS R&D AB v. JSR CORP. [OPINION] (2023-2074, 12/4/2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed the PTAB’s IPR determination that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s determination that 79 challenged composition claims across three related patents were unpatentable but reversed the Board’s...more
Affirming the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final determination that three claims were invalid for obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a “plausible alternative understanding” of the prior...more
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1600, -1709 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Federal...more
Patent owners with robust continuation filing strategies can breathe a sigh of relief as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has withdrawn a proposed rule, which would have weakened patents linked to one...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has withdrawn a proposed rule for filing terminal disclaimers to overcome obviousness-type double patenting rejections. The proposed rule would likely have had wide...more
Patent owners generally look to secondary indicia to bolster their nonobvious defenses when prior art and/or knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) seem to make the obviousness decision a close call. This...more