Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as...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
EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC - Before Taranto, Stoll and Scarsi (sitting by designation). The patent’s prosecution history required a restrictive interpretation of the term “consisting essentially of.”...more
The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more
INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...more
In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia, Nick Gallo, and Bryan Smith explore the evolving landscape of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and...more
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more
Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1674, -1701 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 16, 2025). Per curiam opinion, before Louri, Reyna, and Hughes. Ancora owns a patent directed to restricting unauthorized use of...more
Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1904, -1925 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a jury decision awarding...more
On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found several claims of Ancora Technologies,...more
On June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent...more
When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final determination that challenged patent claims were not unpatentable, finding that the Board’s decision relied on an erroneous...more
On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures....more
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more
On April 18, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al. that new uses for established machine learning do not make the claims patent-eligible....more
On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more
On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, effectively holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel cannot preclude an IPR petitioner from advancing in a district court trial an...more
The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...more
As we predicted in our 2023 report, 2024 was a banner year for design rights in the U.S. and elsewhere. In last year’s report, we noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) agreed to consider en banc...more
Earlier this month, in University of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) that found claims 1-4...more
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
In Southwire Co. v. Cerro Wire LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO decision rendered in an inter partes reexamination proceeding that found Southwire’s patent invalid as obvious. Although the court found that the USPTO...more
In a split decision with Judge Lourie dissenting, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness rejection that had been affirmed in an ex parte appeal to the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The decision was rendered in In...more