News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office › Apple › Patents

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.... more +
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.    less -
Fenwick & West LLP

Key Federal Circuit Patent Rulings Impacting Your Business - Recent Rulings

Fenwick & West LLP on

In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, the Federal Circuit expanded the preclusive effect of non-infringement rulings. It ruled that prior judgments of non-infringement can prevent follow-on lawsuits involving...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more

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

2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Federal Circuit Cases Exploring a Year of Rules, Rulemaking, and Rule Enforcement at...

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

A trio of cases this past year illustrate a trend of increasing importance in the power of Patent-Office rulemaking and enforcement, and the influence it has on patent owners and challengers alike....more

Jones Day

Patent Appendix That Was Referenced, But Not Incorporated, Is Not Prior Art

Jones Day on

In Apple Inc. v. DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, IPR2023-00939, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2024) (“Decision”), the PTAB clarified what is and what is not part of the prior art, and as such what can be considered by the PTAB in an IPR...more

WilmerHale

FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape - January 2024

WilmerHale on

This marks the first issue of WilmerHale’s FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape, a bulletin that will highlight developments about the licensing, litigation, and regulation of patents that are or are claimed...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

The Long Con Otherwise Known as Prosecution Laches

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

Last week, in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit left intact Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s ruling of unenforceability based on prosecution laches and deprived Personalized Media...more

Knobbe Martens

Judicial Review Is Available for PTO Director’s Fintiv Rulemaking Procedure

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. VIDAL - Before Lourie, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Judicial review is available to determine whether the PTO...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

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

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

Fish & Richardson

Director Vidal Issues Interim Guidance on Discretionary Denials under Fintiv

Fish & Richardson on

Earlier today, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued interim guidance regarding the application of the factors the PTAB considers in determining whether to institute an AIA post-grant proceeding where there is parallel district...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

IP Alert: Federal Circuit Nixes Admitted Prior Art as Basis for IPR

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP on

On February 1, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Apple could not base an inter partes review (IPR) challenge of a Qualcomm patent solely on “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) found in the patent...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

In Qualcomm v. Apple, Federal Circuit Rules Out Applicant Admitted Prior Art As the “Basis” for Inter Partes Review

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C. on

On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Northern District of California Dismisses Challenge to PTAB’s Fintiv Factors

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

United States Calls for Supreme Court to Deny Petition for Certiorari Challenging Fintiv Factors

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

On Oct. 28, 2021, the Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition to Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC et al. (No. 21-118). The government argued that the Federal Circuit...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - June 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Bulk-Filed Patent Applications Claiming Distant Priority Trigger Prosecution Laches - In Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Appeal No. 18-2390, the Federal Circuit held that the PTO met its burden to prove prosecution laches for bulk-filed...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

The PTAB Review - July 2021

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati on

This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. It then provides an update on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more

Haug Partners LLP

Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., No. 18-1456, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30820 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2020)

Haug Partners LLP on

In a consolidated appeal from the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple, Inc. challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that Voip-Pal.com, Inc.’s patents were not obvious over the prior...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Decision on Appeal Is Final . . . Mostly

McDermott Will & Emery on

In the latest round of the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held to its precedents in determining when 35 USC § 317(b) estoppel is triggered against inter partes re-examinations. VirnetX...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against DSS's U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted the IPRs and issued final written...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Have you ever used a one-click ordering process online? Then you indirectly paid Amazon.

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

If you purchased anything from a website using a one-click purchase button, you indirectly paid Amazon for that ability, at least up until September 11, 2017 when Amazon’s patent to this technology expired. As a result,...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Invalidation of Patents Following Jury Verdict of Infringement Does Not Necessarily Impact Willfulness Finding

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more

Knobbe Martens

Statements Made in an IPR Can Lead to Prosecution Disclaimer

Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more

K&L Gates LLP

Be Careful What You Wish For: Federal Circuit Says Statements Made During IPR Can Limit Scope of Patent

K&L Gates LLP on

The Federal Circuit on May 11, 2017, addressing the question for the first time, held that statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Holds That Statements Made In IPRs Can Lead To Prosecution Disclaimer

Jones Day on

In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 16-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) (“Federal Circuit Op.”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Apple did not infringe Aylus’s patents. See Aylus Networks,...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

34 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide