A new interim process for the acting director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review ("IPR") or a post-grant review ("PGR") was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary...more
4/4/2025
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Filing Deadlines ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Rules ,
USPTO
A new interim process for the Director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review(IPR) or a post grant review (PGR) was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary considerations and...more
3/31/2025
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") raised patent fees and introduced new surcharges....more
In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. inter partes review, the PTAB found that...more
The Federal Circuit denied Cellect, LLC's petition for rehearing en banc of the In re Cellect case, which held that the expiration of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting ("ODP") purposes is the expiration date...more
1/26/2024
/ En Banc Review ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Term Adjustment ,
Patent Term Extensions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing
In Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit in a split decision concluded that Mobility Workx, LLC’s constitutional challenges to structure and funding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are...more
10/26/2021
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Due Process ,
Fees ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
On September 29, 2021, the Federal Circuit in In re: Vivint, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) held that 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) applies to both inter partes review (IPR) petitions and requests for ex parte reexamination. Accordingly, the...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions finding the claims of Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd.’s (“Yeda”) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and...more
10/26/2018
/ Appeals ,
Evidence ,
Multi-Party Litigation ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation ,
Sandoz ,
Teva Pharmaceuticals
The Federal Circuit recently denied Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“PI”) attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus to circumvent the bar in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions denying...more
Following the logic set forth in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), the Federal Circuit granted Petitioner Adidas AG’s (“Adidas”) motion to remand IPR2016-00921 and IPR2016-00922 to the Patent Trial and...more
A recent written decision by the PTAB in connection with an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is a reminder to patent prosecutors to carefully consider the possible construction of claim terms in a continuation or...more