Latest Posts › Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Share:

Eye Therapies LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more

MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. v. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Cardiovalve Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

One of the assumptions, or promises, or hopes, attendant on the inauguration of post-grant review proceedings (particularly inter partes reviews) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was that, as in European Opposition...more

Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

An argument could be made that one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in U.S. patent law in the last thirty years was Dickinson v. Zurko.  In that case the Court held that the Federal Circuit was bound by the...more

Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025) - Update

Only a few days after the one-year anniversary of hearing oral argument, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. on Monday. The opinion reviewed the...more

Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Only a few days after the one-year anniversary of hearing oral argument, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. In short -- and to be explicated more...more

Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more

Recor Medical, Inc. v. Medtronic Ireland Mfg. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

The inter partes review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been criticized for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find invalid all or at least some of the challenged claims,...more

In re Cellect in View of Supreme Court's "Long Conference"

In view of the Supreme Court's "long conference" on September 30th, it seems timely to review the arguments, pro, con, and amicus briefs submitted to the Court asking for certiorari over the Federal Circuit's In re...more

Novartis Pharma AG v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Dickinson v. Zurko, federal courts (including the Federal Circuit) are compelled under the Administrative Procedures Act to review factual determinations by the U.S. Patent and...more

United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Technologies Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Zealous advocacy is a hallmark of adversarial proceedings, whether in district court or before the USPTO, where the opportunities for such advocacy have multiplied with the establishment by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act...more

USPTO Unveils Examiner Guidance on Searching Drug-related Applications

Last November, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Guidance to the Examiner Corps that was disclosed to the public at the March 19, 2024 Biotechnology, Chemical, and Pharmaceutical Partnership Meeting, on resources to...more

Cardiovalve Ltd. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This post concerns the decision in Cardiovalve Ltd....more

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc....more

Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week, the Federal Circuit handed down its opinion in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) determination that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559 challenged in...more

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

The importance of claim construction, and how construing the same term facing a challenge based on different prior art in separate inter partes review proceedings can result in contrary findings on invalidity, was illustrated...more

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

One of the many changes introduced into U.S. patent law by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were provisions for post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR).  There have been thousands of these proceedings...more

Jager Pro, Inc. v. W-W Manufacturing Co. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

In what was an otherwise run-of-the-mill affirmance of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (albeit somewhat noteworthy in affirming the Board's determination that the challenged claims were not invalid),...more

Broad Files Reply Brief in Interference No. 106,115 Cross-Appeal

In its contingent cross-appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) adverse decision on priority against Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier...more

CVC Files Response and Reply Brief in Interference No. 106,115 Appeal

In its appeal from an adverse decision on priority by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Interference No. 106,115 (directed to CRISPR-mediated gene editing), Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the...more

USPTO Shares Data on Multiple IPR Challenges

One of the many criticisms of the post-grant review proceedings instituted by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, both post-grant review (PGR) available within 9 months of patent grant based on all provisions of the Patent...more

Rembrandt Diagnostics LP v. Alere, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

The Federal Circuit reviewed the latest decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review that claims 3-6 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,548,019 are obvious, in Rembrandt Diagnostics LP v. Alere,...more

In re Theripion (Fed. Cir. 2023)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has benefited, particularly after enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, from the deference to its factual findings mandated by the Supreme Court's interpretation in...more

Amici Support Reversal of PTAB Decision in CRISPR Interference

Two amici have filed briefs in support of the appeal by Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") of the decision by the Patent Trial and...more

273 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 11

"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