News & Analysis as of

Patent Applications Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Ownership

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Demonstrating Unequivocal Intent to Broaden in Reissue

Takeaways: - Patentees must demonstrate “unequivocal intent” to broaden claims in a broadening reissue. - To establish a broadening reissue, a patentee’s actions must align with their words within the two year statutory...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IPR Grounds Doomed for Failure to Show Patent Reference Was Supported by Disclosures in Priority Application

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review, in part because the petitioner failed to show that a key reference qualified as prior art. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner was required to...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – June 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips - April 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Jones Day

Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

Jones Day on

In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more

Jones Day

Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates Matter

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that the disputed claims regarding transferring digital content were not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) after determining that the prior art cited by the...more

Jones Day

Institution Denied Based On Written Description in “Alternative Embodiments”

Jones Day on

On September 21, 2023, the PTAB denied United Services Automobile Association’s petition to institute inter partes review of Auto Telematics’s U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487.  IPR2023-00519, Paper 10....more

Proskauer - Life Sciences

Calls for USPTO to Adopt Policies to Modulate Drug Pricing

In the wake of the nomination of Kathi Vidal as Director of the USPTO, there will be significant attention paid to the agency’s responses to calls from both the executive and legislative branches to remake the agency’s...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Owner Tip #17 for Surviving an Instituted IPR: Alternatives to Motions to Amend in IPR Proceedings

After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner may move to amend challenged claims to overcome the prior art. However, there are also alternative paths to amending claims over the prior art even after an...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

In Qualcomm v. Intel, Federal Circuit Defends Procedural Rights Before the PTAB

Last month, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on six inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions that...more

Weintraub Tobin

No Judicial Estoppel In The Case Of The On-Again, Off-Again Patent Inventor

Weintraub Tobin on

The case of Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. raised the question of whether inventors named on a patent can be repeatedly changed as litigation strategy changes. Because of judicial estoppel, the district court said no...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Intellectual Property Law Year in Review - March 2019

McDermott Will & Emery on

In the continuously evolving world of intellectual property law, 2018 was another milestone year. The US Supreme Court and Federal Circuit continued to define key aspects of intellectual property (IP) law including: •...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank., Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

No Rehearing Because of Hindsight Declaring

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a petitioner’s request for rehearing of its decision declining institution of inter partes review of a patent owned by Bose Corporation (“Patent Owner.”) The PTAB upheld its...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Patenting: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World

Foley Hoag LLP on

Patenting - Patenting generally offers a superior means for legally protecting most inventions, particularly since: • copyright, when available, does not provide a broad scope of protection; and • the...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide