Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes the presumption of obviousness and the obviousness challenge based on prior art that describes a wider range of doses than what is claimed....more
On July 31, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart released a memo instructing the agency “that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other evidence that is not ‘prior art...more
The Patent Office recently announced that it will begin enforcing a rule that requires that inter partes review (IPR) petitions “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed...more
On July 31, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new memorandum announcing that it will begin enforcing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) that requires petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceeding to “specify...more
In a decision that should make every patent litigator pause before filing for preliminary relief, the Federal Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction in FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC, No. 2024-2335 after finding that the...more
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
After the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s non-obviousness determination, the district court again found that Teva failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the claims of Janssen’s patent...more
On July 31, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum (“Memo”) announcing that the Office will renew enforcement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“Rule 104(b)(4)”) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings....more
On July 14, 2025 Fresenius filed two IPR petitions challenging Regeneron’s patents related to aflibercept. Regeneron has not asserted that Fresenius infringes either of these patents in district court litigation; however,...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
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
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Federal Circuit found that claims reciting a...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 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as...more
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...more
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
On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more
INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...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
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
On June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent...more
When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...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
In Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a pharmaceutical dosing claim limitation was nonobvious despite prior...more
UPC case law on the assessment of inventive step is still evolving. Most local division (LD) decisions have indicated a slightly diverging practice from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. However, more recently, others have...more