In a precedential opinion issued on March 4, 2025, in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No, 23-2054, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction and ruling that product-by-process...more
On August 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Volvo Penta of the Ams. LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Case No. 22-1765, vacated a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision holding that parties can contractually bargain away their rights to file petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”). This...more
After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner may move to amend challenged claims to overcome the prior art. However, there are also alternative paths to amending claims over the prior art even after an...more
It is said that Andy Warhol painted the famous Campbell’s Soup Cans after an art gallery proprietor told him to paint “something you see every day and something that everybody would recognize.” While Mr. Warhol’s Campbell’s...more
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the PTAB will often uphold the validity of dependent claims despite finding the independent claim invalid. Dependent claims recite additional limitations that must be separately...more
Expert declarations are an essential component of any patent owner’s effort to survive an instituted inter partes review (“IPR”). The Board relies heavily on expert testimony in order to evaluate and understand the technology...more
The Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated handed down a decision on April 7, 2021 that provides guidance on the determination of standing for patent licensees who wish to contest the validity of a patent or...more
4/21/2021
/ Apple ,
Article III ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
IP License ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Qualcomm ,
Standing
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
4/15/2021
/ Cross Examination ,
Depositions ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Witnesses
Arguing against material constructions proffered by an IPR petition is a basic building block of the patent owner’s preliminary response. Obviously, patent owners must investigate and advocate for claim constructions for...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
11/13/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Denial of Institution ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art
Under U.S. patent law, “No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). And petitioners only need to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one...more
Venue selection is a critical component to any patent enforcement strategy, even before the inception of the PTAB as we know it today. Venue now has even greater importance, as the speed of your patent case (i.e. time to...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was once famously referred to by the former chief judge of the Federal Circuit, the honorable Randall Rader, as a patent death squad....more
In Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated multiple aspects of the district court’s final judgment holding that Hewlett-Packard (HP) did not infringe U.S. Patent No....more
In a precedential opinion on October 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex, No. 2018-1925, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes review...more
10/16/2019
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Form 10-K ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Likelihood of Success ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Prior Art ,
Reasonable Expectations Test ,
Reversal ,
Treatment Method Patents
Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more
10/11/2019
/ Appeals ,
B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence
On February 7, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, No. 2017-1694, dismissed Momenta’s appeal of a Final Written Decision in an Inter Partes...more
Recently in Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
9/26/2018
/ Accessibility Rules ,
America Invents Act ,
Burden of Proof ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Section 102 ,
Trade Shows ,
USPTO
In a precedential opinion issued on October 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) finding of non-obviousness where the prior art taught...more
On September 6, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an “informative” decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd, v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha setting forth the Board’s framework for analyzing...more
In EmeraChem Holdings LLC v. Volkswagen Group of Am. Inc., the Federal Circuit reminded the PTAB that it must abide by the APA’s requirements of adequate notice and an opportunity to respond when conducting a post-grant...more
6/29/2017
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice Requirements ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Reversal
When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision finding against an IPR Petitioner, can that Petitioner necessarily appeal that adverse decision? In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit...more
On December 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that patent claims related to methods of treating elevated homocysteine levels...more