The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently denied Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.’s motion to stay litigation pending resolution of parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before...more
6/21/2019
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Motion To Stay ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Section 337 ,
Third-Party
Our previous blog post on NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), noted the PTAB’s exercise of its § 314(a) discretion to deny IPR institution, despite the...more
In past decisions, the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner appealing a PTAB’s final written decision upholding the patentability of challenged claims after an AIA trial must establish Article III standing. In...more
Jones Day's Dave Cochran and Matt Johnson discuss recent developments in patent litigation and appeals, including the continuing importance of the PTAB as a jurisdiction of first choice for patent disputes in the United...more
On January 31, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision granting institution of inter partes review in Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, L.L.C., No. IPR2018-01331, where the Board held that a...more
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,858,650 (the “‘650 Patent”), which is owned by UCB Pharma GmbH (“UCB”) and is directed to chemical derivatives of a drug for treating...more
2/1/2019
/ Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
Article III ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Standing
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), also called the Patent Reform Act of 2011, was enacted to overhaul the U.S. patent system and harmonize the domestic patent laws with those in the rest of the world. The AIA also created new...more
1/29/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset the...more
After IPR institution, a party may file a motion to submit supplemental information so long as (1) the party requests authorization to file the motion within a month of the date the trial was instituted, and (2) the...more
On January 10, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions weighing on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as informative:
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2017) (AIA § 315(b), insufficient funds at...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), a petition for inter partes review (IPR) may not be filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner was served with a patent infringement complaint. Thus, a petition must meet all of...more
8/5/2017
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Burden of Proof ,
Filing Deadlines ,
Filing Requirements ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Late Payments ,
Limitation Periods ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Time-Barred Claims
The multiple flavors of review and prosecution at the Patent Office produce an environment where a patent family could be subject to inconsistent results. Conceivably, patents in a pre-AIA patent family could simultaneously...more