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
When there are fewer design elements in a design claim or when the individual elements of the design seem commonplace in isolation, it can be easy to overlook the inventive effort that went into developing a design. Rather...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
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
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
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the recent federal circuit decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. This case addresses the date on which a pre-AIA published patent application obtains its status as...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
Synopsis: In a recently issued final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.11,572,334 (“the ’334 patent”) unpatentable.1 The Board’s decision centered...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2023-1636, 2024 WL 5114204 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) concerns an obviousness determination based on a motivation to combine....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
Invega Sustenna® (paliperidone palmitate) - Case Name: Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Civ. Nos. 18-734, 19-16484, 2024 WL 5135666 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2024) (Cecchi, J.) Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit:...more
On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025), addressing whether a...more
On January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion affirming a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the...more
In a precedential opinion entered on January 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating claims of a patent on...more
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Jan. 14, 2025). Opinion by Prost, joined by Lourie and Stark....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
On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...more
Before Lourie, Prost, and Stark - Summary: In an IPR, a patent application is considered a “printed publication” as of the application’s filing date, not its publication date. Samsung filed a petition for IPR of a Lynk Labs...more
On January 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejecting a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277...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
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
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