New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more
Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1871, -1873, -1875, -1876, -2224 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) This week’s Case of the Week mostly resolves an appeal filed five years ago, following decisions from the...more
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious....more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...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
Addressing claim construction issues in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an obviousness finding as to some claims...more
General Electric Co. (GE) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 3 and 16 of Raytheon Technologies Corp.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,695,751 related to gas turbine engines. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)...more
Campbell Soup Co. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Gamon Plus, Inc.’s design patents D612,646 and D621,645. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted the IPR and determined that Campbell Soup did not...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 Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 20-1755 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2021) (precedential), the Federal Circuit issued a rare reversal of a PTAB final determination of obviousness because the principal reference used...more
[co-author: Yuke Wang, Patent Agent] 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...more
Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Elec. Co., Appeal No. 2020-1755 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2021) - In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit issued an important ruling about the issue of enablement...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
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more
In a recent precedential decision, TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a pair of USPTO inter partes review proceedings that invalidated all claims of two related U.S. patents because “the...more
A panel of the Federal Circuit recently sounded off with something less than the usual deferential tone regarding review under the substantial evidence standard of factual findings on patentability made by the Patent Trial...more
In reversing a district court decision as to whether a validity issue remained justiciable after the challenged claims were disclaimed, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the patent owner’s...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1584 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed an inter partes review decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more