(Podcast) The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Jones Day Talks: PTAB's Busy Docket and What's Changed After SAS Institute
Impact of Changes at the PTAB on Patent Owners
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Podcast: PTAB Update: New USPTO Director Brings Significant Changes to PTAB
Compiling Successful IP Solutions for Software Developers
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and...more
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...more
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 this edition of The Precedent, we outline the decision in Trudell Medical International Inc. v. D R Burton Healthcare LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed in part, reversed in part and...more
On April 11, 2022, Niazi Licensing Corporation (“Niazi”) succeeded in part in its appeal at the Federal Circuit in Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. Niazi’s lawsuit alleged that St. Jude Medical S.C....more
NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC. Before Taranto, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Summary: Providing examples in the claim language and...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered in Conformis, Inc. v. Medacta USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-1528-RGA (D.Del. March 4, 2021), The Honorable Richard G. Andrews construed the remaining terms in dispute in the four (4)...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decisions, finding that the Board erred in its construction of certain claim terms relating to an...more
Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Appeal Nos. 2019-1749, -1777 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) - In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed the construction of the term “human antibodies.” In doing so, the...more
This month we highlight two reversals by the Federal Circuit and a summary judgment of indefiniteness from New Jersey. CASES - Federal Circuit - Grant of Preliminary Injunction Reversed - Indivior Inc. v. Dr....more
Under the U.S. Patent laws, claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim what the inventor understands her invention to be. Up until three years ago, the inquiry for determining indefiniteness was to ask whether...more
Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding two terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on November 17, 2016. The disputed technology relates to biometric belt connectors....more
Addressing claim construction issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated the necessity of reading claims in the context of the written description when they are not clear on their face. Howmedica...more
Decision Date: August 7, 2015 - Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patent: D661,801; D661,802; D661,803; D661,804 - Holding: Summary judgment of invalidity REVERSED; claim construction...more
Globus Medical, Inc. v. Depuy Synthes Products, LLC., et al., C.A. No. 13-854-LPS, August 14, 2015 - Stark, C.J. Claim construction opinion regarding 10 terms from 2 patents-in-suit...more
Andrews, J. The court construes terms relating to a patent for a device used to stabilize a human spine. The case was filed in January 2014. Oral argument was held on May 14, 2015 regarding 8 terms of one patent-in-suit....more
Applying the Supreme Court’s new “reasonable certainty” standard for patent definiteness in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (2015) (Nautilus III), the Federal Circuit again held that Biosig’s patent for a heart...more
In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the claims at issue were invalid as indefinite, because the claims were not “insolubly ambiguous.” This case...more
On April 26, 2013, in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Schall, Wallach*) reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment that U.S. Patent No....more