New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
All three of the challenges that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted in 2022 resulted in a final written decision canceling the challenged patent. Two of the three final written decisions rendered in 2023 are...more
This year we are covering three claim construction cases from the Federal Circuit—one coming from the Board and the two from district court. Taken together, the cases are a good reminder of the high burden that a party must...more
Recent headlines have focused on the $1.6 billion damages claim and Google’s possible exposure in Singular Computing’s patent infringement lawsuit involving Google’s “AI-related” chips. $1.6 billion is certainly not chump...more
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more
In 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not issue any final written decisions involving design patents. However, it did issue three decisions granting review of challenged design patents and three decisions...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
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Claim Limitation Not Disclosed by Any Reference but Disclosed by “Proposed Combination” of References Is Obvious - In Hoyt Augustus Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corporation, Appeal No. 21-1561, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
Specification and Prosecution History Narrow the Plain Meaning of “0.001%.” The claim at issue included a concentration of 0.001% of PVP. The term’s plain meaning is 0.001% within one significant figure (i.e., 0.0005% to...more
BLEPHEX, LLC. v. MYCO INDUSTRIES, INC. Before: Moore, Schall, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Summary: Conclusory statements about how a skilled artisan would combine embodiments in a prior...more
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, IPR2018-00600 (July 6, 2020) - Designated Precedential on July 6, 2020 - Petitioner Hunting Titan challenged Patent Owner Dynaenergetics’ claims based upon anticipation...more
Case Name: UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., Fed. Cir. Nos. 2016-2610, 2016-2683, 2016-2685, 2016-2698, 2016-2710, 2017-1001 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2018) (Circuit Judges Prost, Bryson, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll,...more