Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)
Director Review Under the USPTO's Final Rule – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Patent Considerations in View of the Nearshoring Trends to the Americas
4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
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
Earlier this year, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) requested inter partes review (“IPR”) of a number of patents owned by the Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”). ...more
In the last few weeks, the PTAB has granted institution of eight IPRs filed by Merck on Johns Hopkins patents directed to methods of treatment using pembrolizumab. The eight patents are generally directed to methods...more
On June 13, 2024, the PTAB granted institution of IPR2024-00240 that Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC (“Merck”) filed in November 2023 challenging claims 1-42 of The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the...more
PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
Anticipation of a claim generally requires that a single prior art reference explicitly discloses each and every claim element. However, absent an express teaching in the prior art, a claim may also be anticipated if it is...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that prior art disclosing a class of 957 salts could not inherently anticipate claims to a salt within the class because...more
Sixty years ago, the Federal Circuit’s predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent appeals, considered whether the prior art disclosure of a chemical genus anticipated species falling within the scope of that...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. has filed an IPR petition on U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415. This patent has been challenged several times over the past year with mixed results: IPR2015-01624 (instituted); IPR2016-00383 (not...more
Addressing the issue of obviousness in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) under a...more
The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more
In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held the challenged claims obvious in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Although the...more
On December 17, 2015, in Merck v. Gnosis, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR Decision finding a pharmaceutical patent invalid for obviousness. Justice Newman vigorously dissented from the majority’s view (Justices...more
In a recent case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that certain claims of Merck’s U.S. Patent No. 6,011,040, which were challenged by Gnosis, were invalid as anticipated or obvious....more
On December 17, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming a determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that patent claims related to methods of treating elevated homocysteine levels...more
As she has done many times before (and so many times that she has been unfairly characterized as a scold on the Federal Circuit), Judge Lorraine Newman dissented from the panel majority decision affirming an obviousness...more
About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Gilead Pharmasset LLC 1:15-cv-00416; filed May 21, 2015 in the District Court of...more
The year 2014 saw some important developments in the area of intellectual property law. A number of intellectual property-related issues even made national headlines. Who can forget the public debate over the rightful...more