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
In a setback for automakers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has once again upheld the validity of Neo Wireless’s U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, rejecting challenges brought by several major automakers. The most recent...more
On July 29, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick circulated a memorandum to Members of the PTAB entitled “Final Written Decision Procedures for AIA Trial Proceedings.” ...more
A recent memo from the acting director of the US Patent and Trademark Office directs the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject inter partes review (IPR) petitions that use “applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert...more
For the first time under the bifurcated institution procedures, the Acting Director reversed her own prior discretionary denial, citing changed circumstances based on a settlement in the parallel district court litigation. ...more
Challengers striving to beat higher-ranked opponents at the US Open tennis tournament happening now in New York are not the only challengers facing tricky new situations. Parties wishing to challenge the validity of US...more
Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes,...more
IGT v. ZYNGA INC. - Before Prost, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Interference estoppel does not apply when the interference was terminated due to a threshold issue....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has undergone significant changes in how it evaluates patent challenges, creating both opportunities and obstacles for technology and life sciences companies....more
Returning to its decision in Kroy IP, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving undisturbed its prior opinion that collateral estoppel does not apply...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
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
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
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in the ongoing dispute in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., addressing the collateral estoppel effect of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions on subsequent...more
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
In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more
On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....more
A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the...more
Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a...more
On July 29, 2025, Judge Edgardo Ramos (S.D.N.Y.) granted plaintiff Kannuu Pty, Ltd. (“Kannuu”) leave to amend its complaint to allege infringement of two newly-issued patents, after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more
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
On July 31, 2025, the Acting Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant memorandum that alters the evidentiary landscape for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and...more
On July 14, 2025, Fresenius Kabi filed IPR2025-01268 against Regeneron’s U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 (“the ’865 patent”) and IPR2025-01269 against U.S. Patent No. 10,828,345 (“the ’345 patent”), both relating to EYLEA®...more
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
On 25 July 2025, K&L Gates secured an important win for its client, Midas Green Technologies, LLC. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director review and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR)...more
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