News & Analysis as of

Life Sciences Patent Trial and Appeal Board United States Patent and Trademark Office

Fenwick & West LLP

Navigating the PTAB’s New Discretionary Denial Landscape: Strategic Shifts for Patent Challenges

Fenwick & West LLP on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has undergone significant changes in how it evaluates patent challenges, creating both opportunities and obstacles for technology and life sciences companies....more

Jones Day

Cancellation of Claims Deemed An Inappropriate Sanction

Jones Day on

USPTO Acting Director Stewart sua sponte reconsidered and modified a previous Director Review decision that had affirmed cancellation of all 183 challenged claims as a sanction against patent owner Longhorn Vaccines. ...more

Venable LLP

PTAB Director Discretionarily Denies Opdivo® IPRs Based on Settled Expectations of Patent Owner

Venable LLP on

On July 24, 2025, the PTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied Amgen’s IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 challenging Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,856,320 (“the ’320 patent”) and...more

Jones Day

Discretionary Denial of IPR Institution Due to Advanced Hatch-Waxman Litigation

Jones Day on

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

McDermott Will & Schulte

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception...more

Foley Hoag LLP

A Super CRISPR Week – the Week of May 12, 2025: Patent Battles, Clinical Milestones, and Next-Gen Tools

Foley Hoag LLP on

Key Takeaways: Federal Circuit Reopens CRISPR-Cas9 Priority Fight. The CAFC vacated the PTAB’s earlier ruling that UC lacked prior conception of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells, remanding the interference for reconsideration...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute

The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) Must an inventor know their invention will work to demonstrate that they “conceived” of it? ...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Federal Circuit Revives CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Priority Dispute

The CRISPR-Cas9 patent landscape remains complex and unsettled. The Federal Circuit’s latest decision in University of California v. Broad Institute1 revived the high-stakes dispute between UC2 and Broad3 over foundational...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands in Long-Pending Dispute over CRISPR IP

Those hoping the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would finally resolve priority in the long-pending dispute between the University of California and the Broad Institute will have to wait a little longer. Oral...more

Goodwin

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s In Re Xencor Decision: Jepson Claims Require Written Description for Their...

Goodwin on

On March 13, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Xencor, Inc. (the Xencor decision). The Xencor decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel...more

Knobbe Martens

Jepson Claim Preamble Requires Written Description Support for Conventional Aspects of the Invention

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE: XENCOR, INC. Before Hughes, Stark, and Schroeder (sitting by designation).  Appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. To provide adequate written description for a Jepson claim,...more

ArentFox Schiff

Federal Circuit Affirms ImmunoGen Patent Obviousness

ArentFox Schiff on

In a precedential opinion issued on March 6, the Federal Circuit affirmed the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that the claims in ImmunoGen’s US patent application 14/509,809 (“the ’809 application,”...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

A Look Ahead: Key Intellectual Property Legal Developments in 2024 - and What to Expect in 2025

From potential legal challenges to Chinese biopharma supply chains, Europe’s new Unified Patent Court (UPC), landmark decisions in life sciences, pharma’s Orange Book listings, design patent rejections, and likely shifts at...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

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

Knobbe Martens

Settlements Don’t Close the Door: Antitrust Claims Follow IPR Challenges in Life Sciences

Knobbe Martens on

In the ongoing case of Carefirst of Maryland Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, the plaintiffs successfully overcame a motion to dismiss. At the heart of the case is J&J’s legal strategy against biosimilar competitors, including...more

Goodwin

The Appeals Review Panel’s In Re Xencor Decision: The USPTO Provides Its Position on Written Description and Means-Plus-Function...

Goodwin on

On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries - Intellectual Property: Year End Report

We are pleased to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural “Year in Review” report that collects and reports on most key patent law-related Federal Circuit decisions for 2023. This is a follow up to the quarterly report we...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Specially Convened Rehearing Panel Vacates IPR Institution Denial

In a rehearing decision issued by a Delegated Rehearing Panel specially convened by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board vacated a prior panel decision denying institution, modified...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Event] 22nd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences - May 29th - 30th, New York, NY

Hosted by American Conference Institute, the 22nd Advanced Summit on Life Sciences Patents returns for another exciting year with curated programming that will provide practical insights on how to maximize your patent term...more

Morgan Lewis

Federal Circuit: Only Minimal Evidence Needed to Satisfy Corroboration Requirement in Priority Contests

Morgan Lewis on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly considered evidence of multiple witnesses to be sufficient in corroborating actual reduction to practice when...more

Fish & Richardson

What to Know About the USPTO’s Duty of Candor Guidance Regarding FDA Submissions

Fish & Richardson on

​​​​​​​By now you have seen multiple reports discussing the PTO’s Notice of July 29, 2022, relating to the duties of candor and good faith. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 145, July 29, 2022....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Case Studies and Trends at the PTAB Involving 35 U.S.C. § 112

Over the last 20-plus years, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases concerning written description and enablement have become a hot-button issue in the chemical and life sciences practices. The year 2021 was no...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Sigma-Aldrich Files Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 2 to Remove Broad Application from Interference

On December 3rd, Senior Party Sigma-Aldrich filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 2 in Interference No. 106,133 (which names the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) as Junior Party),...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Broad Files Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 to Designate Claims as not Corresponding to Count in Interference No. 106,133

On December 3rd, Junior Party the Broad Institute, Harvard University, and MIT (collectively, Broad) filed its Contingent Preliminary Motion No. 3 in Interference No. 106,133 (which names Sigma-Aldrich as Senior Party),...more

40 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide