New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the validity of a pharmaceutical patent concerning the patent’s written description. Following an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the...more
Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that the Federal Circuit always says never, patent publications...more
While courts have often warned that hindsight bias should be avoided when assessing whether a patented invention would have been obvious to the skilled person, the application of this principle can be challenging in practice....more
In September of last year, and in light of a corresponding Japanese patent infringement suit, I published an article detailing how The Pokémon Company had filed two patent applications at the United States Patent and...more
2024 brought exciting developments at the Federal Circuit. The court issued its first en banc decision in a patent case in five years in LKQ, which significantly altered the standard for proving obviousness of a design...more
A patent’s specification established a naming convention that applied to terms in the patent’s claims. Microchip Technology filed an IPR, arguing all claims of HD Silicon Solutions’ patent were invalid. The challenged patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination even though it found the Board had improperly construed a claim term, because the Court found the error harmless...more
On January 27, 2025, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) “has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents.” See Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, 2025 WL 299939, *2 (Fed....more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a history of attempting to challenge judicial decisions that the Office, usually for its own policy reasons, takes issue with.[1] Recently, the Office decided to challenge the...more
On, January 27, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on certain claims of Gesture Technology...more
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal Nos. 2024-1965, -1966, -2082, -2083 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025) Our Case of the Week is a 31-page decision that touches on a variety of issues, including...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more
Report summary -Knobbe Martens' inaugural Federal Circuit Year in Review report offers a comprehensive overview of the most significant Federal Circuit rulings of 2024 and how they could shape IP law in the years ahead....more
Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that appellants Bearbox and Austin Storms—Bearbox’s...more
The majority of 2024 was a quiet year for design patent cases at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court issued five opinions involving U.S. design patents: one Rule 36(a) affirmance, two decisions involving...more
As we predicted in our 2023 report, 2024 was a banner year for design rights in the U.S. and elsewhere. In last year’s report, we noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed to consider en banc...more
On January 15, 2025, Celltrion filed IPR2025-00456 against Regeneron’s U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 (“the ’865 patent”), challenging claims 1-17, 19-42, 44-50 as anticipated and claims 1-50 as obvious....more
On January 10, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc., reversing a lower court decision that claims of a Novartis patent...more
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
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 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
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
Please join Fitch Even for a free webinar, “Navigating the Changes to the Test for Obviousness in Design Patents After LKQ Corp. v. GM Global,” on Tuesday, October 29, at 9:00 a.m. PDT / 10:00 a.m. MDT / 11:00 a.m. CDT / 12...more