News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Intellectual Property Litigation

Irwin IP LLP

2025 Mid-Year Report - Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Of 2025 (So Far)

Irwin IP LLP on

We have passed the midpoint of 2025, and the landscape of intellectual property law continues to evolve at a rapid pace, shaped by emerging technologies, and shifting judicial interpretations. From pivotal Supreme Court...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

The PTAB Pendulum Swings: How IPR Denials are Reshaping Patent Owner and Challenger Strategies

Post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are undergoing sweeping transformation. Over the past year, as other federal agencies have grown cautious to avoid further budget constraints and downsizing,...more

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

U.S. IP Update – August 2025

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

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

Federal Circuit Issues First Decision on Litigated AIA Derivation Proceeding

In Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time an appeal from a derivation proceeding litigated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act (AIA)....more

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

“At Your Discretion” — Discretionary Denials Increase as PTAB Issues Institution Decisions

The first half of 2025 has brought many changes at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including policy changes at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). At the end of March 2025, the issuance of the...more

Alston & Bird

Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter | August 2025

Alston & Bird on

Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that duping the court can prove costly, excluding a witness may...more

Jones Day

Two Week Deadline for PTAB to Issue Notice of Filing Date Accorded

Jones Day on

On July 18, 2025, Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge for the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), announced that, absent good cause, the PTAB will issue a Notice of Filing Date Accorded within 14 days...more

Venable LLP

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

N.D. Cal. Judge Reverses Prior Order Barring Device Art “Materially Identical” to Printed Publications After Federal Circuit...

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Navigating Shockwave Medical: Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Standing, and Obviousness

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes various key issues in patent litigation, including the role of applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”), standing, and obviousness. Background - Shockwave Medical, Inc. (“Shockwave”)...more

Venable LLP

PTAB Director Discretionarily Denies Opdivo® IPRs Based on Settled Expectations of Patent Owner

Venable LLP on

On July 24, 2025, the PTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart discretionarily denied Amgen’s IPR2025-00601 and IPR2025-00602 challenging Bristol-Myers Squibb’s (“BMS”) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,856,320 (“the ’320 patent”) and...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: IGT v. Zynga Inc.

IGT v. Zynga Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the reviewability and merits of the Patent Trial Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Appeal is too late to raise percolating claim construction dispute

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement, concluding that the patent owner had improperly raised a claim construction issue for the first time on appeal – an...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Intellectual Property Report July 2025

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

The PTAB has returned to a more flexible and discretionary approach to denying post-grant proceedings, reintroducing the Fintiv factors and adding new considerations such as settled expectations and USPTO workload. These...more

Haug Partners LLP

In CRISPR Patent Dispute, the Federal Circuit Clarifies the Conception and Written Description Standards

Haug Partners LLP on

On May 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regents of the Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc.1 concerning the ongoing priority dispute relating to competing inventor groups for the CRISPR-Cas9 eukaryotic...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

Haug Partners LLP

Settled Expectations: How the PTAB’s New Discretionary Denial Framework Is Reshaping IPR Strategy

Haug Partners LLP on

In a recent article, Haug Partners previewed that the impact of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) new bifurcated approach to discretionary denial requests would depend on how the new Acting USPTO Director, Coke...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Seeing double? Director instructs Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting...more

Knobbe Martens

Reissue Applications Are Bound by the Scope of the Claims as Written, Not as Intended

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE KOSTIC - Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. When considering whether a reissue claim broadens the scope of the original patent, the PTAB determines the actual scope...more

Knobbe Martens

Keeping PACE With CRISPR

Knobbe Martens on

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SYNTHEGO CORP. - Before Prost, Linn, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Obviousness does not require all claimed limitations to be expressly disclosed in a primary prior...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

When it comes to objective criteria of nonobviousness, nexus is looser for license evidence

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, effectively relaxing the nexus requirements for patent licenses pertaining to their usage as objective indicia...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Looks like estoppel, sounds like estoppel … but it’s just director discretion

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in...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

White & Case LLP

Federal Circuit Reinforces Standard for Prior Art Enablement in CRISPR Dispute

White & Case LLP on

On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (No. 23-2186), addressing enablement of prior art references for disputed CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing...more

Jones Day

USPTO 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

336 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 14

"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