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
In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based...more
On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the...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
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
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
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
On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit rendered an opinion in Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. surrounding U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688 (the '688 patent"). This marks the second time that the Federal Circuit has weighed...more
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more
Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more
In re: Riggs, Appeal No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) Our Case of the Week explores the power of an examiner to request a rehearing after the Board has entered a decision on an application. The case also relates to...more
This article continues our analysis of over 89,000 patents to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts litigation outcomes. Last month we discussed how prosecution length impacts...more
In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the Federal Circuit's decision in HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc. In HD Silicon Solutions LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed an appeal from the USPTO Patent...more
This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more
2024 brought exciting developments at the Federal Circuit. The court issued its first en banc decision in a patent case in five years in LKQ, which significantly altered the standard for proving obviousness of a design...more
A patent’s specification established a naming convention that applied to terms in the patent’s claims. Microchip Technology filed an IPR, arguing all claims of HD Silicon Solutions’ patent were invalid. The challenged patent...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination even though it found the Board had improperly construed a claim term, because the Court found the error harmless...more
Abuse of Process and/or Sanctions – 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 - Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC, IPR2021-00847, IPR2021-00850, IPR2021-00854, IPR2021-00857 & IPR2021-00860 - Decision...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently issued its opinion in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, a case that focuses on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, claim breadth and the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: USPTO Director Vidal to Step Down - On November 12, Under Secretary of...more
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
ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification...more
2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more
Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more