New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more
IMMUNOGEN, INC. v. STEWART - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Prost. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A solution to a problem can be obvious even when the problem itself was unknown in...more
CQV CO., LTD. v. MERCK PATENT GMBH - Before Cunningham, Chen, and Mayer. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board erred by failing to explain why it discarded material and unrebutted evidence that a reference...more
The landscape of design patent law has recently evolved with the introduction of a new standard for determining obviousness. For decades, the Rosen-Durling test was used to assess obviousness of design patents....more
Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting claims of a patent application directed to a dosing regimen for a cancer treatment, finding the claims to be obvious where the...more
Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug in Regeneron...more
After creating something of a frisson due to the apprehension that the Federal Circuit might be convinced to re-evaluate whether it was a necessary element for establishing obviousness for the skilled artisan to have had a...more
1. Background: ImmunoGen’s Patent Application & Dispute - In 2014, ImmunoGen, Inc. (Immunogen) filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/509,809 (the ’809 application)....more
The door may now be open for additional challenges to patents covering mRNA vaccine technologies, paving the way for increased competition in the mRNA vaccine space. On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, the United States Patent...more
This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more
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
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