Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
In Natera, Inc v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 24-1324 the Federal Circuit held that preliminary injunction may be valid if a substantial question of invalidity was not raised, even if the asserted patent is...more
A district court recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to intermittent fault detection (IFD) technology for electrical systems in aircrafts, deciding that the asserted claims are patent...more
Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
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
Design patent holders can rejoice, for now, as the Federal Circuit reinforces its stance on the invalidity of design patents based on obviousness. On January 20, 2023, the Federal Circuit upheld a decades old rule that...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - In Re MCDONALD [OPINION] (2021-1697, 8/10/2022) (Newman, Stoll, and Cunningham) - Cunningham, J. The Court affirmed a PTAB decision rejecting reissue claims under 35 U.S.C. §...more
Judge Orrick in the Northern District of California recently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that the claims recited the abstract...more
Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...more
It is now over 10 years since the Bilski decision was handed down by the United States Supreme Court. In that decision and several other decisions that followed (i.e., Mayo, Myriad, and Alice), the Supreme Court pronounced...more
On January 6, 2021, the Federal Court issued its decision in two patent infringement actions pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations involving Teva’s patents pertaining to the...more
Due to the relatively low number of post-grant reviews (“PGR”) filed to date, not many district courts have spoken on the scope of PGR estoppel. In GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Texas), Magistrate Judge...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
In CardioNet, LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that affirmed a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on step one...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH - Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll. Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: Claims directed to improving the functionality of one tool that is part of a system do not...more
A district court has denied a patent owner’s motion to strike wholesale a defendant’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The key issue in the motion to strike was the application of the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1584 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed an inter partes review decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the retroactive...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
A district court in California has granted-in-part a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel. During the pendency of the litigation, Defendants...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Tabbed Spreadsheets Patent Eligible and Claims Directed to Tracking Changes in Documents Ineligible Under Section 101 - In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No....more
Both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) accept a third party observation regarding validity of a patent application. In February 2012, it was announced that third party observations could be...more
Inter partes reviews (IPR) are limited by statute to grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty requirement) and 103 (nonobviousness requirement) and on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications....more