The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more
7/30/2025
/ Burden of Proof ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
7/29/2025
/ Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) ,
Double Patent ,
Estoppel ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Re-Examination ,
Patent Reissue Applications ,
Patents ,
USPTO
As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Acting USPTO Director refocus challengers, and with them Patent Owners, towards reexamination from inter partes review proceedings, the need to understand the nuance of “new” in...more
7/14/2025
/ Appeals ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Innovation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more
2/4/2025
/ §315(e) ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Final Rules ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Rulemaking Process ,
Section 102 ,
Statistical Analysis ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Technology ,
USPTO
Takeaways:
1. ODP in reexamination and reissue remains unpredictable despite Allergan
2. Patent Owners should carefully review ODP rejections to ensure they are proper
Obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) is a legal...more
8/28/2024
/ Allergan Inc ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Expiration ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Re-Examination ,
Patent Reissue Applications ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Reissue Patents ,
USPTO
In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more
6/2/2022
/ Appeals ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
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
6/1/2022
/ Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Claim Construction ,
Clear and Convincing Evidence ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Damages ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Evidence ,
Experimental Use Exception ,
Expert Testimony ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Section 102 ,
Separation of Powers ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski]
Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
3/7/2022
/ §315(e) ,
35 U.S.C. § 285 ,
America Invents Act ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Biologics ,
Biosimilars ,
Biotechnology ,
Chemical Compounds ,
Claim Construction ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Credibility ,
Declaration ,
Depositions ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Exceptional Case ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventors ,
Life Sciences ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Orange Book ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Cancellation ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Pre-AIA Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Section 112 ,
Section 325(d) ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Testimony ,
USPTO ,
USPTO Pilot Program ,
Vacated ,
Written Descriptions
In a non-precedential decision, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, LLC v. Hirshfeld, the Federal Circuit held that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, once the Board decided Ground 3 was too imprecise and would not be...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
9/29/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
AIPLA ,
Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
LEAP ,
Mootness ,
Obviousness ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Professional Development ,
USPTO ,
Young Lawyers
In Olaplex, Inc. v L’Oréal USA, Inc. the Federal Circuit addressed, among other issues, PGR estoppel in subsequent district court litigation. Here, the Court addressed the timing to raise estoppel regarding written...more
6/8/2021
/ Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
L'Oreal ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Written Descriptions
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
6/3/2021
/ Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
IP License ,
L'Oreal ,
Obviousness ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Philip Morris ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
RJ Reynolds ,
Section 337 ,
USPTO ,
Vacated ,
Written Descriptions
[co-author: Yuke Wang, Patent Agent]
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...more
4/27/2021
/ Claim Construction ,
Evidence ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Prior Art ,
Reversal ,
Split of Authority
In its decision to remand, the Federal Circuit (1) held the Board’s non-analogous art test was wrong and articulated a new test for the Board to follow on remand, and (2) left it up to the Board to make the ultimate decision...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
11/18/2020
/ Comment Period ,
Federal Register ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand
Last month’s newsletter discussed Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, where patent owner Alacritech appealed a final written decision (FWD) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (IPR)...more
9/19/2020
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Reaffirmation ,
Substantial Evidence Standard
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
In a precedential decision Realtime (page 8-9) and a follow-on non-precedential decision Polygroup (page 15), two Federal Circuit panels (with Dyk on each) appear to hold that a single two-reference obviousness Ground, when...more
2/27/2019
/ Alternative Pleadings ,
Appeals ,
Follow-On Patent Petitions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Printed Publications ,
Statement of Grounds
Eleven of thirteen cannabis patent claims survive PTAB challenge.
Insys Development Company, Inc. filed a petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-13 of GW Pharmaceutical Ltd.’s patent directed to the use of...more
1/28/2019
/ Biopharmaceutical ,
Cannabidiol (CBD) oil ,
FDA Approval ,
Hemp ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Marijuana ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
The PTAB is starting to provide teeth to the Federal Circuit’s lead compound analysis making it more difficult for petitioners to successfully challenge chemical patents in AIA proceeding, as well as providing patent owners...more
This is the second of a three-part series discussing developments around Section 325(d). Part one appeared in our October 2017 newsletter and part three will appear in our December 2017 newsletter....more
11/21/2017
/ America Invents Act ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Follow-On Patent Petitions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 325(d)
The PTAB Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both sides of the “v” with an...more