News & Analysis as of

Patent Applications Obviousness Patent Litigation

Smart & Biggar

[Webinar] Cross-border IP strategies for IP owners and litigators - September 18th, 2:00 pm PDT

Smart & Biggar on

Explore skinny labelling & obviousness in Canada and Australia - If you are an intellectual property (IP) owner, a litigator or an in-house legal professional managing IP litigation in multiple jurisdictions, don’t miss...more

Smart & Biggar

[Webinar] Cross-border IP strategies for IP owners and litigators - September 12th, 12:00 pm GMT

Smart & Biggar on

Explore skinny labelling & obviousness in Canada and Australia - If you are an intellectual property (IP) owner, a litigator or an in-house legal professional managing IP litigation in multiple jurisdictions, don’t miss...more

Kilpatrick

First-filed, Later-Expiring Patent Protected from Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Post In re Cellect

Kilpatrick on

The recent In re Cellect decision by the Federal Circuit1 is significant for patent owners who have obtained patent-term adjusted patents in the same patent family. The court held that term-adjusted patents can be potentially...more

Troutman Pepper

New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast

Troutman Pepper on

Please join our Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings. In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Andy...more

Goodwin

The USPTO Proposes a Radical Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice: You Have an Opportunity to Comment

Goodwin on

On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that, if enacted, would tie the enforceability of every claim of a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer to the...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Federal Circuit Overrules Obviousness Test for Design Patents

In its first en banc patent decision since 2018, the Federal Circuit overruled the longstanding obviousness test for design patents under 35 U.S.C. 103. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, No. 21‑2348 slip op. (Fed....more

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

United States Patent and Trademark Office Proposes Changes to Terminal Disclaimer Practice

On May 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that could dramatically impact prosecution practices, especially for those...more

Fenwick & West LLP

USPTO Proposes Major Change to Terminal Disclaimer Practice

Fenwick & West LLP on

On May 9, the USPTO released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for significant changes to terminal disclaimers. The USPTO suggests adding a new requirement that applicants can overcome an obviousness-type double patenting...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

A Continuation Application is an Implicit Admission of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting When Filed from a Parent Patent

Filing a continuation application from a parent patent is an implicit admission that obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) applies to the resulting continuation patent. A Terminal Disclaimer in the continuation patent over...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] 22nd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences - May 29th - 30th, New York, NY

Hosted by American Conference Institute, the 22nd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents returns for another exciting year with curated programming that will provide practical insights on how to maximize your patent term...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Same Applicant, Similar Claims Support Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness-type double patenting rejection, finding that an unexpected mechanism of action does not render the known use of a known...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

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

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Patentee’s Own Clinical Trial Renders Unpatentable Patent Claims Directed to Antibody Treatment

In a final written decision of an inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found all 12 claims of a challenged patent unpatentable as either anticipated or obvious. Each ground of unpatentability...more

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

Mind Your Ps and Qs, and Your PTAs Too

Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

In re Couvaras, No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023)

This case addresses obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in relation to a method of increasing prostacyclin release to reduce hypertension in a patient. In particular, this case discusses issues relating to motivation to...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. No. 2021-1924, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)

This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Error in Prior Art Did Not Render Invention Obvious

In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that an obvious error in a prior art reference was not considered a teaching. The court explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would...more

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

2022 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

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

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th...

Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2023 #3

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2021-2275 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2023) Our Case of the Week focuses on the doctrine of prosecution laches. Following a bench trial on the issue held shortly...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Absent Expressed Rationale of Obviousness, Federal Circuit Calls for Do-Over

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a ruling by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) where, on appeal, the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rationale for sustaining the Board’s obviousness...more

Smart & Biggar

Safe and cost-effective divisional application filing strategies under Canada’s newest patent rules

Smart & Biggar on

Canada recently introduced patent rules related to excess claim fees and continued examination fees that have the potential to complicate conventional approaches to filing divisional patent applications....more

71 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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