News & Analysis as of

Nike Patents Appeals

Jones Day

Skechers IPR Still Kicking After Director Review

Jones Day on

In a Director Review, the Acting Director reversed a panel decision to discretionarily deny an IPR under § 325(d). The Acting Director held that the PTAB’s own findings in two previous IPRs sufficiently proved Examiner error...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions

[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Rescinding a Specification Disclaimer Introduces New Matter

Fenwick & West LLP on

A recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit serves as an important reminder of the distinction between a disclaimer introduced in the specification of a patent and a disclaimer introduced during...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

“Seams” Like Activity Giving Rise to Infringement Risk Supports Appellate Jurisdiction

Adding to its body of jurisprudence on standing to challenge an adverse final written opinion in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a petitioner had constitutional...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - June 2020 #3

This week’s case of the week deals with issues relating to obviousness and standing in a consolidated appeal of two final written decisions issued in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more

Knobbe Martens

No Specific Threat of Infringement Litigation Needed to Establish Standing for IPR Appeal

Knobbe Martens on

ADIDAS AG v. NIKE, INC. Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent challenger can establish standing to appeal a final written decision in an IPR by showing that...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2019: The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure...

In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG (Fed. Cir. 2020)

The procedural niceties of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's implementation of the post-grant review features of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act continue to be explicated in the Federal Circuit (and of course, the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2018

Knobbe Martens on

The Board’s Final Written Decision Must Address All Grounds for Unpatentability Raised in a Petition for Inter Partes Review - In Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018-1180, 2018-1181, the Federal Circuit held that...more

Knobbe Martens

Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Moore, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu requires the Board in an instituted...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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