New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1532, -1533 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) In this week’s case of the week, the Federal Circuit re-affirmed existing precedent that in inter partes review proceedings before...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board non-obviousness decision, finding that the context of the proposed combination of prior art in the Board’s obviousness inquiry...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 a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision finding the challenged claims patentable because the Board impermissibly rested its motivation-to-combine...more
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) - In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to...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
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...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
SynQor, Inc. appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) holding un- patentable as obvious original claims 1–19, 28, and 31 of SynQor’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 as...more
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...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 a nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit gave a mixture of success and failure to the parties in four separate inter partes review decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline...more
Samsung sought inter partes review of M&K’s U.S. Patent No. 9,113,163. The Board held all claims unpatentable. M&K appealed, arguing that the Board erred by relying on references that do not qualify as prior art printed...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] 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
M & K HOLDINGS, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Moore, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Title-searchable publications shared on a prominent standards-setting...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
On November 9, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by the United States Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, holding that the PTAB applied an...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35...more
274-1 Federal Circuit Revisits American Axle & Manufacturing; Case Remanded to Determine if One of the “Hooke’s Law” Claims is Ineligible under Other Theories of Eligibility - The Federal Circuit recently issued a modified...more