News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Patent Invalidity

McDermott Will & Emery

Don’t get too comfy: Prosecution disclaimer also applies to design patents

McDermott Will & Emery on

Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

The UPC – Two Years On

The Unified Patent Court – a one-stop-shop for European patent litigation – is now two years old. As it enters its third year of operation, we look at the approach that is becoming established in the new system, drawing out...more

A&O Shearman

UPC Court of Appeal clarifies approach to claim construction

A&O Shearman on

Insulet v EOFlow UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Ord_69078/2024) The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has issued a significant decision that provides important guidance on the interpretation of patent claims in UPC...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

PTO Creates New Expectations Regarding Discretionary Denials

On the heels of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of iRhythm Technologies’ inter partes review petition, the PTO has now issued additional decisions clarifying the role...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Do Not Try Again: Judge Oetken Invokes Collateral Estoppel to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Infringement...

On July 9, 2025, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y) found that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff Linfo IP, LLC from relitigating the validity of its asserted patent and dismissed Linfo’s infringement claims against Aero...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Enbrel® (etanercept) / Erelzi® (etanercept-szzs) / Eticovo® (etanercept-ykro) - July 2025

Venable LLP on

Etanercept Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Jackson Walker

Perceptix v. Meta Platforms – A Headphone Patent Lawsuit Without a Sound Basis

Jackson Walker on

On June 30, 2025, Perceptix filed suit against Meta Platforms for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,498,439, which describes a headphone that turns on when it is worn. The ‘439 Patent is assigned to the Electronics and...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Prolia® / Xgeva® (denosumab) / Jubbonti® / Wyost® (denosumab-bbdz) / Ospomyv™ / Xbryk™ (denosumab-dssb) / Stoboclo®...

Venable LLP on

Denosumab Challenged Claim Types in Litigation: Claims are counted in each litigation, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Humira® (adalimumab) / Amjevita™ (adalimumab-atto) / Cyltezo® (adalimumab-adbm) / Hyrimoz™ (adalimumab-adaz) /...

Venable LLP on

Adalimumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Rituxan® (rituximab) / Truxima® (rituximab-abbs) / Ruxience® (rituximab-pvvr) / Riabni™ (rituximab-arrx) - July 2025

Venable LLP on

Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Vacates $300 Million Damages Award Due To Flawed Verdict Form

A&O Shearman on

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated a $300 million damages award because the district court used a flawed verdict form, which included only a single, blanket question as to...more

Jones Day

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

Jones Day on

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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: RPI Arguments Must First Be Raised at the PTAB

Jones Day on

Apple Inc., et. al v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 4, 2025) (Moore (Chief Judge), Prost and Stoll) (on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) [WAIVER; OBVIOUSNESS] ....more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

File Early or Risk Denial: iRhythm IPR Institution Denial Underscores the Importance of Filing IPR Petitions Sooner Rather Than...

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

On June 6, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision denying institution of five inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions filed by iRhythm, Inc....more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) / Fulphila® (pegfilgrastim-jmdb) / Udenyca® (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) / Ziextenzo®...

Venable LLP on

Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

Honeywell Strikes Back Against 'Patent Troll' With North Carolina Lawsuit Under Abusive Patent Assertions Act

Honeywell International Inc. has taken a proactive stance against what it describes as "unwarranted and unfounded" patent litigation by filing a declaratory judgment action in the Western District of North Carolina against...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

Jones Day

Applying Fintiv to a Parallel ITC Investigation

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)...more

Jones Day

Institution Denied for Insufficient Publication Evidence

Jones Day on

On October 29, 2024, BabyBjörn AB (“BabyBjörn”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,786,055 (“the ’055 Patent”), which is assigned to The ERGO Baby Carrier, Inc. (“ERGO Baby”). ...more

Jones Day

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Jones Day on

Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more

Jones Day

Trial Date Drives PTAB’s Denial of IPR Institution

Jones Day on

On April 16, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,307, owned by Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc. HP Inc., Dell...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

Jones Day on

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as...more

786 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 32

"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