New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Please join our Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings. In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Andy...more
On February 13, the USPTO issued inventorship guidance for AI-assisted innovations. The guidance, effective as of February 13, 2024, emphasizes that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable and the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding that the claims at issue were either invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 as unsupported by written...more
2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more
Cellect owned four patents with claims that were found unpatentable by the PTAB in ex parte reexaminations for obviousness-type double patenting. The patents were granted Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for the Office’s delay...more
2023 was a busy year at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as post-grant practice continued to evolve at a rapid pace. At the United States Patent and Trademark Office, there were big developments in Director Review and...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
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
In Olaplex, Inc. v L’Oréal USA, Inc. the Federal Circuit addressed, among other issues, PGR estoppel in subsequent district court litigation. Here, the Court addressed the timing to raise estoppel regarding written...more
Ex parte reexamination may be requested by either a patent owner or a third party in order to challenge the novelty or nonobviousness of one or more claims in a patent. ...more
On January 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the general principle that the mere fact of copying by an accused infringer is insufficient to rebut a charge of obviousness (L’Oreal USA, Inc. v. Olaplex, Inc.; appeal from...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more
Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed limits on what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is authorized to do by statute when dealing with challenged claims in an inter partes review (IPR) that it finds...more
On December 11, 2019, the PTAB designated two additional decisions as “informative.” Such informative decisions are not binding on subsequent panels, but are meant to provide guidance on recurring issues encountered by PTAB...more
On October 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that evidence of copying may be used to rebut an obviousness challenge, even if that evidence does not relate to the copying of a specific product. (Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA,...more
In Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that failed to take into account evidence of copying in its obviousness analysis. The Federal...more
MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, Appeal No. 2017-2292 (Fed. Cir. August 12, 2019) - MTD had a patent for steering and driving systems for zero turn radius vehicles, such as lawn mowers. The patent was challenged in IPR, where...more