Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1864, -1940 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 14, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Cunningham....more
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) after applying the Fintiv factors, despite Petitioner’s...more
On July 1, 2025, Fresenius Kabi announced the U.S. launch of Conexxence™ / Bomyntra™ (denosumab-bnht), biosimilars of Amgen’s Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab), pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties ending BPCIA...more
Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more
Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Denosumab Challenged Claim Types in Litigation: Claims are counted in each litigation, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted...more
Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Adalimumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more
Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 30, 2025). Opinion by Scarsi, joined by Taranto and Stoll. Eye Therapies owns a patent that claims a method for reducing eye redness...more
On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned...more
On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) claim construction of the phrase “consisting...more
In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase...more
Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more
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
Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed construction of the transitional claim phrase...more
On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s...more
On June 26, 2025, Sarepta Therapeutics filed IPR2025-01194, challenging as obvious claims 3-6 of Genzyme’s U.S. Patent No. 9,051,542 (“the ’542 patent), and IPR2025-01195 challenging claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No....more
INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. - Before Moore, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Speculative plans for potentially infringing activity are insufficient to...more
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
On June 2, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued decisions denying institution of Samsung Bioepis’s IPR2025-00176 and Formycon’s IPR2025-00233 against claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, 20, 22–36, 39–42, 44, 45, and...more
On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (No. 23-2186), addressing enablement of prior art references for disputed CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing...more