News & Analysis as of

Standing Obviousness Patent Infringement

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | May 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness as “Improperly Rigid”

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - LKQ CORPORATION v. GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC [OPINION] (2021-2348, 5/21/24) Moore, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, and Stark - Stoll,...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

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

[Webinar] Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions - February 2nd, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

In conjunction with the release of the firm's year-in-review report, speakers will offer case summaries and analysis of the significant 2022 appellate rulings discussed in the report. Topics of the featured intellectual...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir....

Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more

Knobbe Martens

Concrete Plans Establish Standing for IPR Appeals

Knobbe Martens on

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries

Alston & Bird on

A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed Where Party Appealing PTAB Decision Lacked Article III Standing

Knobbe Martens on

AVX CORPORATION V. PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: Appellants from an IPR decision to the Federal Circuit must have concrete claims...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - February 2019

Knobbe Martens on

PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Applicant Has Standing to Appeal IPR Decision, Even with Only Paragraph III Certification

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a failed inter partes review (IPR) petitioner that maintained a Paragraph III certification had sufficient standing to appeal an adverse decision, but affirmed the...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

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - September 2018

WilmerHale on

Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

A Claimed Parameter Range That Overlaps with Ranges in the Prior Art Creates a Burden-Shifting and Rebuttable Presumption of...

The Federal Circuit has reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,921 (the “’921 Patent”) were not shown to be obvious, finding that the PTAB applied the...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2018

WilmerHale on

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Petitioner’s Appeal of Final Written Decision for Lack of Standing

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of standing an appeal filed by an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner of a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held two...more

Knobbe Martens

JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive LTD.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board. Summary: An IPR petitioner lacks standing to appeal an adverse decision by the Board if it sells no infringing...more

Smart & Biggar

New Use Patent for Janssen’s REMICADE valid and infringed by Hospira’s biosimilar INFLECTRA

Smart & Biggar on

On March 7, 2018, the Federal Court upheld the validity of Kennedy’s patent for a use of infliximab (Janssen’s REMICADE) (Patent No. 2,261,630 [the “630 patent”]), and granted Kennedy’s counterclaim that Hospira’s biosimilar...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Today the Circuit agreed to hear en banc Nantkwest v. Matal,in which the panel had reversed a district court decision that had rejected the PTO’s position that applicants who appeal a district court must pay the PTO’s legal...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2017

Knobbe Martens on

“Common Sense” Alone Is Not a Sufficient Motivation to Combine References - In In Re: Van Os, Appeal No. 2015-1975, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s reliance on intuition or common sense...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - May 2016

WilmerHale on

Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions (No. 2015-1425, 1438, 5/31/16) (Prost, Reyna, Stark) - May 31, 2016 3:11 PM - Reyna, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents based on...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2016

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Dismisses an Appeal of an Inter Partes Reexamination for Lack of Standing Where the Appellant Failed to Establish that it was the Successor-in-Interest to the Original Petitioner - In Agilent...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | August 2015

Knobbe Martens on

Online Banking Patents Based On “Abstract Ideas” Held Patent Ineligible Under Alice - In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Appeal No. 2014-1506, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to...more

25 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