4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post Grant Radio: Episode #16: Kevin McNish, McNish PLLC
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #14: Tom Rozylowicz
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Appeals Review Panel (“the Panel”) recently clarified that means-plus-function claims do not require that the specification disclose equivalents. See Ex parte...more
On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials recently reiterated to all patent examiners that they must provide clear, consistent analysis regarding means-plus-function and step-plus-function limitations. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that in the context of construing computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, if the specification discloses some arguable algorithm, even if a party...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
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
On December 28, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not decline to consider the patentability of a claim challenged in an inter partes review (IPR)...more
The Federal Circuit is holding its first argument session of 2022 this week (with a return to telephonic arguments in light of the Omicron variant). In this post, we take a look back at how the Court closed out 2021 and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued decisions in two separate inter partes reviews (IPRs), one involving a patent related to radio frequency communication systems and the other involving a patent related to...more
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) - The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by...more
The Federal Circuit has its August sitting this week—its last before September’s scheduled return to in-person arguments. Before taking the virtual bench for the final time, the Court issued six opinions last week. Below we...more
Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite - In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1646, the Federal Circuit held that the structure for performing a...more
If you are a patent owner facing an inter partes review (“IPR”) or other post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), your best chance of success is to convince the PTAB not to institute a trial. But that...more
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s...more
Last week the summer was winding down and the Federal Circuit was gearing up for its September argument session. But the Court still found time to hand down a number of decisions—17 in total. Below we provide our usual weekly...more
In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the '740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...more
On June 18, 2020, the PTAB denied an IPR petition because the Petitioner failed to sufficiently construe the means-plus-limitations of the challenged claims. Mattersight Corporation (“Mattersight”) owns the challenged...more
COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB V. OTICON MED. AB - Before Taranto, O’Malley, and Newman. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Anticipation and obviousness analysis by the PTAB is not impossible...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-2416, et al. (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2020) (unsealed May 13, 2020) - In this recently unsealed precedential opinion, the Federal...more
Means-plus-function claim limitations can present troublesome § 112 issues for IPR petitioners, and a recent PTAB decision further demonstrates how § 112 problems can derail an IPR petition. Samsung Electronics America, Inc....more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...more
Addressing the applicability of 35 USC § 112, ¶6 to the term “mechanical control assembly,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gave undue weight to the patent’s...more
The US Court of Appeals vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding that the disputed means-plus-function term was computer-implemented and therefore required the corresponding structure to...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more