News & Analysis as of

Patent Litigation Intellectual Property Protection Article III

McDermott Will & Emery

Blurred Vision: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Standing

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s appeal in an inter partes review (IPR) because the challenger could not meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Constitutional Standing Not Required for 337 Investigations

While a complainant does not need to have constitutional standing to bring a complaint in the International Trade Commission (ITC), at least one complainant must be the owner or exclusive licensee of the underlying asserted...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2023

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed....

Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Novartis Pharms Corp. v. Crystal Pharm. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Novartis Pharms Corp. v. Crystal Pharm. (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., No. 20-md-2930-RGA, 2022 WL 16921985 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2022) (Andrews, J.)  Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Entresto® (sacubitril/valsartan); U.S....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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more

Polsinelli

One-Year Time Bar Triggered After the Service of a Complaint, Regardless of Whether the Serving Party Lacked Standing to Sue

Polsinelli on

On August 23, 2019, the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a precedential opinion relating to the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). ...more

Troutman Pepper

A Party Who Lacks Standing Can Still Trigger the Section 315(b) Time Bar

Troutman Pepper on

GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754 (Precedential Opinion Panel, August 23, 2019) - Section 315(b) of Title 35 prohibits institution of an IPR where the petition is filed more than one year after service of a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - May 2019 #3

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - AVX Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019) - Following an inter partes review upholding the patentability of certain challenged claims, the...more

Jones Day

IPR Appeal Dismissed After Biosimilar Development Discontinued

Jones Day on

Article III of the Constitution imposes a “case or controversy” limitation on the jurisdiction of federal courts: an actual case or controversy must exist between the parties at all stages of the federal court proceedings,...more

Troutman Pepper

Sometimes the Patent Office Has the Last and Only Word

Troutman Pepper on

The Federal Circuit just issued a decision that confirms its stance on Article III standing for appeals from inter partes reviews (IPRs), making it tougher for unsuccessful IPR petitioners to obtain judicial review of U.S....more

Jones Day

Appellate Standing Not Precluded By Inability To Maintain Hatch-Waxman Suit

Jones Day on

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (the “‘650 Patent”), which is owned by UCB Pharma GmbH (“UCB”) and is directed to chemical derivatives of a drug for treating...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Decision Clarifies When an ANDA Filer May Appeal an Adverse IPR Ruling

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Patent Day at the Supreme Court

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today the Supreme Court re-affirmed the validity of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process in Oil States Energy LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, but also made IPRs a somewhat more stringent process in its decision today in...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Win or Go Home? Standing to Appeal PTAB Decisions Upholding Patentability to the Federal Circuit Before Submitting a Biosimilar...

Biosimilar developers have been aggressive in filing petitions for inter partes reviews (IPRs) of biologics patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), many of them preceding the filing of a marketing...more

Dickinson Wright

Will Inter Partes Reviews Be Abolished By The Supreme Court?

Dickinson Wright on

On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could undermine a key provision in the America Invents Act. Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (Oils States). The issue...more

Hogan Lovells

US: Supreme Court hears argument on constitutionality of inter partes review

Hogan Lovells on

On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that will determine the constitutionality of inter partes review, a proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and...more

Hogan Lovells

Hogan Lovells ITC Section 337 Monthly Highlights

Hogan Lovells on

The latest news round-up from our Hogan Lovells ITC Section 337 practice, including a new section featuring "tips from the bench" by former ITC Judge Theodore (Ted) R. Essex. ...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Research, Ltd.

Robins Kaplan LLP on

Case Name: Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Research, Ltd., No. 16-3145-WTL-MJD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27016 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017) (Lawrence, J.). Drug Product and Patent(s)-in-Suit: Pataday® (olopatadine); U.S. Patents Nos....more

Womble Bond Dickinson

State Universities Gain Immunity from IPRs

Womble Bond Dickinson on

State Universities Gain Immunity from IPRs - Today, many universities own extensive patent portfolios that are managed by sophisticated tech transfer offices. Universities obtain these patents for many reasons, not the...more

Proskauer - New England IP Blog

The Federal Circuit’s Standing Requirement to Appeal Patent Office Decisions

In a recent landmark decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit announced that not all inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office can be appealed. While anyone can file an IPR petition, not...more

22 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