DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
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
Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1871, -1873, -1875, -1876, -2224 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) This week’s Case of the Week mostly resolves an appeal filed five years ago, following decisions from the...more
Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1873 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a California district court’s judgment as a...more
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...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
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
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35...more
Unconstitutionally Appointed Judges Cannot Decide Ex Parte Appeals - In In Re Boloro Global Limited, Appeal No. 19-2349, When administrative patent judges are unconstitutionally appointed, their decisions in ex...more
274-1 Federal Circuit Revisits American Axle & Manufacturing; Case Remanded to Determine if One of the “Hooke’s Law” Claims is Ineligible under Other Theories of Eligibility - The Federal Circuit recently issued a modified...more
Last month, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding certain claims of U.S. Patent...more
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Reyna concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part Summary: The language “unobvious over the prior art” in...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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Data Engine Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1135 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018) - In one of two Section 101 cases this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more
Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1452 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) - In these two, published, precedential orders...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more
On July 17, 2017, the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (the “Board”) granted in-part, Patent Owner’s conditional motion to amend on remand from an appeal to the Federal Circuit. In a final written decision issued in April 2015,...more
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal’s Board (PTAB) is required to explicitly state motivations to combine prior-art references in claim rejections for obviousness. ...more
On remand from the Federal Circuit the PTAB granted authorization for a patent owner to file a supplement to its Motion to Amend in Veeam Software Corporation v. Veritas Technologies LLC, IPR2014-00090, Paper 42 (P.T.A.B....more
Fraud-Detection Patent Claimed Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent...more
Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more
Fetal diagnostic pioneer Ariosa Diagnostics lost its latest attempt to invalidate competitor Verinata Health’s U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430, “Methods of Fetal Abnormality Detection.” The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
The non-invasive prenatal testing field has been an active area for patent challenges. Ariosa has challenged patents held by competitors Sequenom and Verinata. The latter is patent owner in two IPR proceedings challenging...more