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
SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. In inter partes review...more
IGT v. Zynga Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the reviewability and merits of the Patent Trial Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter...more
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...more
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
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
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and...more
On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of a Janssen patent, finding that Teva did not meet its burden to prove obviousness. In so doing, the Federal Circuit provided...more
Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2023-1428 (Fed. Cir. (D. Mass.) July 7, 2025). Opinion by Stark, joined by Prost and Taranto. Egenera owns a patent related to improved systems and methods for deploying and...more
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed (on its second review) a district court’s ruling upholding the validity of patent claims related to a long-acting injectable dosing regimen, finding that the...more
Purdue Pharma (Purdue) has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a recent Federal Circuit decision upholding the invalidation of several Purdue patents on grounds of obviousness....more
On July 8, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. affirming the district court’s finding that patent claims to a...more
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2025-1228, -1252 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025) Our Case of the Week focuses on obviousness. More particularly, the decision included a lengthy...more
In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation V. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2110, the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review decision on patentability when...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
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
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
In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more
CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00068, -00070 (June 25, 2025) (designated informative on June 26, 2025). Order by Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of...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
A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more