New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC [OPINION] (2021-2348, 5/21/24) Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark - Stoll,...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
In conjunction with the release of the firm's year-in-review report, speakers will offer case summaries and analysis of the significant 2022 appellate rulings discussed in the report. Topics of the featured intellectual...more
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) - The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found, in the context of an appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) decision, that the appellant had Article III standing and affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board)...more
Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more
This week’s case of the week deals with issues relating to obviousness and standing in a consolidated appeal of two final written decisions issued in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...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
Addressing the issue of Article III standing and obviousness in an appeal of an inter partes review (IPR) decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner had standing to appeal because past...more
Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1063 (Fed. Cir.. April 30, 2020). Grit Energy filed a petition for inter partes review against Oren’s U.S. Patent No. 8,585,341 pertaining to systems of...more
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC v. FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC - Before Lourie, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Summary: District courts lack the authority to...more
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a failed inter partes review (IPR) petitioner that maintained a Paragraph III certification had sufficient standing to appeal an adverse decision, but affirmed the...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
In Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Limited v. UCB Pharma GmbH, generic drug manufacturer Amerigen appealed a decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding UCB’s patent to certain chemical derivatives of diphenylpropylamines...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A generic pharmaceutical company had standing to appeal the Board’s decision in an IPR that claims of a...more
Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. (No. 2018-1276, 12/14/18) (Prost, Dyk, Moore) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. “[W]e caution future litigants to tread...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Reyna, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party must file a cross-appeal when their argument requires modification of a decision. Under the...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision (DuPont v. Synvina) addressed two key issues in PTAB proceedings: burden shifting and standing to appeal....more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more