News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Obviousness Patents

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Invalidates Patent For Angioplasty Catheter Based On Applicant Admitted Prior Art

A&O Shearman on

The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Shockwave Med., Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. (CSI), affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision, and...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Design Patent Obviousness: One Year Later

Womble Bond Dickinson on

One year has passed since the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit made its landmark decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, which overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for determining design...more

A&O Shearman

The Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Use Of Traditional Construction Of “Consisting Essentially Of”

A&O Shearman on

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | June 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation V. Unified Patents, LLC, Appeal No. 23-2110, the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review decision on patentability when...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot Form “Part of the Basis” of an IPR Ground, Reversing a PTAB Win for...

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a...more

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

The Evolution of “New” in the “Substantial New Question” Standard in Patent Reexamination

As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Acting USPTO Director refocus challengers, and with them Patent Owners, towards reexamination from inter partes review proceedings, the need to understand the nuance of “new” in...more

Jones Day

Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

Jones Day on

On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Prosecution history primacy: “Consisting essentially of” means what applicant said it meant

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase...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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Eye Therapies LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Appeal No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed construction of the transitional claim phrase...more

Venable LLP

Pembrolizumab Patent IPR Final Written Decision Issued and Director Review Requested

Venable LLP on

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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Eyes Open to the Past: Federal Circuit Holds Prosecution History Is Claim Construction Evidence

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies that Enablement of Prior Art is a Separate (and Distinct) Inquiry from Enablement of Claims in a Patent

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Understanding the Impact of IPR Estoppel and PTAB Discretionary Denials — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast

Troutman Pepper Locke on

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia, Nick Gallo, and Bryan Smith explore the evolving landscape of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and...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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

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

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

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

Irwin IP LLP

No Rhythm, No Review: USPTO Director Skips a Beat on IPRs. 

Irwin IP LLP on

iRhythm Technologies, Inc., v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, IPR2025-00378 (P.T.A.B. June 6, 2025) - On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Clarifies Nexus Standard For Secondary Consideration Licensing Evidence

A&O Shearman on

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found several claims of Ancora Technologies,...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Cardiovalve Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

One of the assumptions, or promises, or hopes, attendant on the inauguration of post-grant review proceedings (particularly inter partes reviews) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was that, as in European Opposition...more

Volpe Koenig

“Settled Expectations” as the New Gatekeeper for PTAB Discretionary Denials: Why Late-Stage IPRs Are Getting Harder to File

Volpe Koenig on

When Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in Dabico v. AXA Power IPR2025-00408  Paper 21, much of the commentary focused on the result....more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Enabling Anticipatory Prior Art Reference Need Only Enable a Single Embodiment of the Claim

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

An argument could be made that one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in U.S. patent law in the last thirty years was Dickinson v. Zurko.  In that case the Court held that the Federal Circuit was bound by the...more

963 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 39

"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