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
IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 22, 2025). Opinion by Taranto, joined by Prost and Reyna. IGT owns a patent related to secured virtual networks in gaming environments. After the patent application was...more
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
On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “PTAB”) decision not to apply interference estoppel and, therefore, to institute an inter partes review...more
The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a...more
As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Acting USPTO Director refocus challengers, and with them Patent Owners, towards reexamination from inter partes review proceedings, the need to understand the nuance of “new” in...more
The PTAB has returned to a more flexible and discretionary approach to denying post-grant proceedings, reintroducing the Fintiv factors and adding new considerations such as settled expectations and USPTO workload. These...more
A set of recently issued memoranda by United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) officials has re-energized the debate around discretionary denials in post-grant trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)....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
As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more
iRhythm Technologies, Inc., v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, IPR2025-00378 (P.T.A.B. June 6, 2025) - On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)...more
When Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in Dabico v. AXA Power IPR2025-00408 Paper 21, much of the commentary focused on the result....more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more
Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more
On June 6, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Stewart issued a decision in iRhythm Tech. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (and four related IPRs), which granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. This is...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
In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more
Prior art patents and publications have long been the primary source for anticipation and obviousness assertions by defendants in IP litigation. System art—an actual system or device—is a less common source of prior art due...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 April 25, 2025, the USPTO issued additional information in response to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management” memorandum issued on March 26, 2025. As discussed in our...more