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
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 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
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
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
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
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
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more
An argument could be made that one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in U.S. patent law in the last thirty years was Dickinson v. Zurko. In that case the Court held that the Federal Circuit was bound by the...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
Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...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
One year ago today, the en banc Federal Circuit decided LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, where it overturned the decades-old Rosen-Durling test for obviousness of a design patent for being “improperly...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
Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....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
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision M & K Holdings v. Samsung Electronics Co., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in finding certain...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 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