News & Analysis as of

Patent Applications United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board

A&O Shearman

The Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Use Of Traditional Construction Of “Consisting Essentially Of”

A&O Shearman on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

The Evolution of “New” in the “Substantial New Question” Standard in Patent Reexamination

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

Jones Day

Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on “Settled Expectations”

Jones Day on

Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more

WilmerHale

PTAB/USPTO Update - July 2025

WilmerHale on

On June 12, the nominee for USPTO Director John Squires was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 20-2.  His nomination has been placed on the Senate’s Executive Calendar and will proceed to a floor vote....more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO: No Bright-Line Rule on When Expectations Become Settled

Fish & Richardson on

On June 18, 2025, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Stewart issued a discretionary denial decision in Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, granting the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial...more

ArentFox Schiff

USPTO Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ as Basis for PTAB Discretionary Denials

ArentFox Schiff on

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued a Director Discretionary Denial decision expanding on the “settled expectations” ground for discretionary denial of a post-grant review proceeding...more

K&L Gates LLP

First Denial Based on USPTO’s New Discretionary Denial Factors

K&L Gates LLP on

Earlier this year, Chief Judge Boalick issued guidance on the USPTO’s recission of “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” explaining how the Fintiv...more

Jones Day

PTAB Clarifies Interim Workload Management Process

Jones Day on

On April 17, 2025, following Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s memorandum announcing a new interim process to manage the workload of all PTAB judges, the USPTO held a Boardside Chat outlining the new bifurcated process...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Discretionary Denials in Action: iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc.

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

Volpe Koenig

When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn

Volpe Koenig on

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

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Priority Denied, Patent Derailed: When One Filing Cancels Out the Other

On April 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision In re: Bonnie Iris McDonald Floyd that underscores a critical and often overlooked risk in design patent prosecution: relying on a utility patent application for...more

DLA Piper

How Delayed Notice of Date Accorded Mailings May Affect Inter Partes Review

DLA Piper on

Inter partes review (IPR) practices have seen significant changes since US Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Coke Stewart assumed her current role in January 2025. Perhaps the most significant change has been Acting...more

Fish & Richardson

Navigating Change at the USPTO

Fish & Richardson on

While it may seem like the only constant at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is change, that sentiment rings especially true in 2025. With a new presidential administration in the White House and numerous...more

A&O Shearman

Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Holds That Conception Does Not Require Certainty of Success

A&O Shearman on

On May 12, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in an interference proceeding concluding that the Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

PTAB Rejects AI-Driven Medical Patent – Not for Novelty, But Eligibility

In a recent decision with important implications for artificial intelligence (AI) driven innovation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a patent for an AI-based medical tool. The refusal was not because the...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Discretionary Denials—Act II

On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office fundamentally changed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) initially considers petitions in post grant proceedings under the...more

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

One Year of LKQ v. GM: How Much Has Really Changed?

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

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Federal Circuit Revives CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Priority Dispute

The CRISPR-Cas9 patent landscape remains complex and unsettled. The Federal Circuit’s latest decision in University of California v. Broad Institute1 revived the high-stakes dispute between UC2 and Broad3 over foundational...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Method of Treatment Claim’s Limiting Preamble Must Satisfy the Written Description Requirement

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Recent Updates at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Recent changes at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have brought uncertainty to inter partes review and post-grant review practitioners before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These procedural and...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending April 4, 2025

Alston & Bird on

In re: Forest, No. 2023-1178 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 3, 2025). Opinion by Chen, joined by Taranto and Schall.  In 2016, an inventor filed a patent application that claimed priority to an application filed in 1995. The Patent...more

MoFo Tech

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

MoFo Tech on

Knowing what qualifies as prior art is a core requirement of patent practitioners—whether in life sciences, in the technology sectors or in post-grant proceedings. It is important to keep abreast of changes to the rules,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Patent Without a Pulse: Provisional Rights Don’t Outlive the Patent

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a patent applicant seeking provisional rights on a patent that would issue only after it had already expired, finding that the applicant lacked the...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Limits Reliance on Provisional Priority Date Under Section 102(e)(1)

On March 24, the Federal Circuit held in In re Riggs that for a published non-provisional patent application to be prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) based on an earlier provisional filing date, all citations to...more

279 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 12

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide