News & Analysis as of

Patent Applications Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patents

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

Jones Day

PTAB Issues First Post-LKQ Design Patent Decision

Jones Day on

On August 6, 2024, the PTAB issued its first written decision applying a new test for obviousness of design patents. In Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., IPR2024-00525, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024)...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings

Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims,...more

Jones Day

Institution Denied for Failure to Show Disclosure in Provisional Application

Jones Day on

On December 1, 2023, Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. (“Intelligent”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,401,779 (“the ’779 Patent”) (“IPR256”), assigned to Downing Wellhead Equipment,...more

Baker Donelson

Patent Cases to Watch for in the Second Half of 2024

Baker Donelson on

As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more

Jones Day

Private Sale Not Necessarily Public Disclosure Under Section 102(b)(2)(B)

Jones Day on

In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports for...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

Fenwick & West LLP

Should a Printed Publication Be Considered in Inter Partes Reviews Based Only on its Publication Date?

Fenwick & West LLP on

Lynk Labs has presented an argument to the Federal Circuit, asserting that patent applications should only be utilized to invalidate patents in inter partes reviews based on their publication date. Currently, the filing date...more

Venable LLP

The First Biosimilar Disputes at the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Venable LLP on

As the era of biologics and biosimilar litigations heats up in the United States, Europe’s Unified Patent Court (UPC) is also taking center stage with the first two biosimilar disputes filed in March and April....more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

LKQ v. GM: What In-House Counsel Needs to Know About This Change in Design Patent Law

On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision (full court, instead of the typical three-judge panel) in LKQ Corp. et al. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, overturning the long-standing obviousness test...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, April 2024: PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding Upheld by Federal Circuit, Blockchain Gemstone Identifying Process Patent...

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog...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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2024

Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1391, -1425 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2024) In the Court’s only precedential patent opinion this week, the Court affirmed a jury finding that use of Amazon’s “Alexa” products...more

WilmerHale

PTAB/USPTO Update - March 2024

WilmerHale on

On February 13, the USPTO issued inventorship guidance for AI-assisted innovations. The guidance, effective as of February 13, 2024, emphasizes that AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable and the...more

Kilpatrick

No Magic Number: Understanding Public Accessibility in IPR Proceedings Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., 92 F.4th 1059...

Kilpatrick on

Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a Petitioner may challenge the validity of an issued patent in an IPR proceeding “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Public accessibility has been held to...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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Petitioner Failed to Establish Standing in IPR Appeal

Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC addresses whether an IPR petitioner can assert Article III standing on appeal based on potential infringement liability and potential preclusive effects on its...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2023

Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. March 10, 2023) In a PTAB decision that was recently designated precedential, the Board made two important decisions concerning provisional patent...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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

In what was an otherwise run-of-the-mill affirmance of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (albeit somewhat noteworthy in affirming the Board's determination that the challenged claims were not invalid),...more

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

USPTO Confirms Different Frameworks for Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Prior-Art Determinations

On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more

White & Case LLP

AI Legal News Summer Roundup: Edition 5

White & Case LLP on

...We round out our series with a summary of several developments around the world that focus on the adequacy of the various jurisdictions' laws in addressing the opportunities and risks arising from generative AI....more

Jones Day

Explanations, Not Bare Citations, Needed To Establish Prior Art Date

Jones Day on

Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

136 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"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