News & Analysis as of

Patent Infringement Prior Art Patent Invalidity

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 1, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co., Ltd., et al. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) July 28, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Chen and Hughes....more

A&O Shearman

UPC Ruling on amendment of counterclaims in patent revocation

A&O Shearman on

Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v. Ceracon GmbH, Mannheim Local Division, June 6, 2025 (UPC_CFI_745/2024) The UPC has recently clarified its strict approach to amending counterclaims for revocation in patent litigation....more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Intellectual Property Report August 2025

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Key Takeaway: When facing a patent infringement suit, accused infringers traditionally turned to inter partes review (IPR) as a faster, more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. However, recent guidance...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ex Parte Reexaminations Poised to Make a Quiet Comeback: Discretionary Denial Guidance for Inter Partes Reexamination May Increase...

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Imagine this. You were just served with a Complaint for patent infringement and learn that, some years ago, your competitor was granted a patent giving them a legal monopoly to exclude others, including you, from making,...more

Jones Day

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

Jones Day on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 & Schulte

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

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

A&O Shearman

The CAFC Holds That IPR Estoppel Does Not Shield Patentees From System Prior Art

A&O Shearman on

On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

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

Jones Day

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Jones Day on

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...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

BakerHostetler

[Podcast] The Changing Landscape: Admissibility of Experts in Patent Cases

BakerHostetler on

Experts play a crucial role in patent cases. Experts opine on claim construction, infringement, invalidity and the proper amount of damages. And the exclusion of an expert witness can significantly impact the outcome of a...more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Product-by-Process Analysis: Invalidity ≠ Infringement

On March 4, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision in Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 23-2054, 2025 WL 679195, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025), finding that the patent...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

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

PTAB Year in Review – Caveat Experimenter: Using Experimental Data in PTAB Proceedings Comes With Risks

Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more

Jones Day

Speculative IPR Discovery Request Not in the Interest of Justice

Jones Day on

“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Precedent: Federal Circuit Provides Further Clarity on Issues Surrounding Patent Validity in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v....

In this edition of The Precedent, we outline the validity of a pharmaceutical patent concerning the patent’s written description. Following an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the...more

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Motion for Joinder After Unsuccessful District Court Invalidity Challenge

Jones Day on

On June 6, 2024, Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. (“Waydoo”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 (“the ’044 Patent”) (“IPR998”), assigned to MHL Custom, Inc. (“MHL”)....more

160 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"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