• The Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy ruled 7-2 that cancellation of patent claims in an inter partes review does not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
• In SAS...more
5/1/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
After nearly two years of patent litigation in dozens of cases in the United States and China, a Chinese trial court issued an injunction against Samsung, barring it from making or selling its 4G LTE smartphones in China—an...more
4/27/2018
/ Anti-Suit Injunctions ,
China ,
Cross-Licensing Agreement ,
FRAND ,
Huawei ,
Injunctions ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Technology Sector
In an April 12, 2018 decision, the District Court for the District of Delaware held that a change in the primary reference of an obviousness combination that was denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)...more
Requests for rehearing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) are not uncommon; however, the Board rarely grants them. One reason for this result is the high standard applied to reverse a prior decision—abuse of...more
4/19/2018
/ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Reversal
In an order issued on April 4, 2018, Judge Lynn granted plaintiff ZitoVault’s motion for summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2), holding that defendant IBM is estopped from asserting invalidity defenses based on prior art...more
4/18/2018
/ Amazon ,
Anticipation ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
IBM ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
On March 23, 2018, a district court judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to withdraw their petitions for inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The court granted...more
4/9/2018
/ Breach of Contract ,
Forum Selection ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
IP License ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a petitioner’s request for rehearing of its decision declining institution of inter partes review of a patent owned by Bose Corporation (“Patent Owner.”) The PTAB upheld its...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Pfizer, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of the sole claim of Biogen Inc.’s (“Patent Owner”) U.S. Patent 8,329,172 (the “’172 Patent”)....more
In a recent decision, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas rejected the argument that decisions of the United State Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) invalidating patents held infringed by a jury means that a...more
11/3/2017
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Reexamination ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Motion for Judgment ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO ,
Willful Infringement
On October 23, 2017, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel granted Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information (“the Motion”) on the publication date of an asserted reference. At the time the Petition was...more
Obviousness challenges are popular post-grant challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Generally, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (“§ 103”), the courts make legal and factual inquiries into (1) the scope and content...more
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel upheld a stay of co-pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings pending a decision on the patent owner’s petition for writ of certiorari....more
A district court judge denied a plaintiff’s motion to preliminarily enjoin a defendant from selling saliva collection kits for DNA testing....more
On September 30, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of the plaintiff ’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the complaint...more
Petitioners Praxair Distribution, Inc. and NOxBOX Limited filed petitions requesting inter partes review (IPR) of the claims of four related patents owned by Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd. (“Mallinckrodt”). The claims...more
On August 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge John Love in the Eastern District of Texas denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims. These defenses and counterclaims related...more
The District Court of Delaware denied defendant Wockhardt’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement action based on the reasonable inference that plaintiff AstraZeneca may need to assert its patent rights in the future. On...more
A judge in the Northern District of California has enjoined a group of defendants from selling a laboratory DNA sequencing machine. The plaintiff first asserted the patent against one defendant in litigation in the District...more
In a final written decision issued on August 30, 2016, in an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) examined whether a “Request for Comments” (RFC) document qualified as a printed publication under 35...more
Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Conclusion that Claims Challenged in Reexamination Would Have Been Obvious -
On August 31, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion reversing a judgment by the Patent...more
On September 2, 2016, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled that U.S. Patent No. 9,157,017 (the “’017 patent”) was eligible for post-grant review (PGR) even though, on its face, the patent claims priority to a...more
Upon remand by the Supreme Court following its decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), a panel of the Federal Circuit reconsidered its previous decision to vacate a jury’s...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES -
CAFC: If (No Factual Findings), Then (No Deference) -
Two days ago, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit in Shire v. Watson again affirmed its reversal of the...more
6/8/2015
/ Claim Construction ,
Clear Error Standard ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
IBM ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Remand ,
Safeway Inc ,
SCOTUS ,
Shire Development v Watson
DISTRICT COURT CASES -
Patent Directed to Online Auction Held Invalid Under § 101 -
A district court recently granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that a patent directed to an...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES -
Judge in the Northern District of California Excludes Damages Expert Opinion that Used the Entire Handset as the Royalty Base -
Judge Grewal of the Northern District of California granted...more