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
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 Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1864, -1940 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 14, 2025). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Lourie and Cunningham....more
Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 30, 2025). Opinion by Scarsi, joined by Taranto and Stoll. Eye Therapies owns a patent that claims a method for reducing eye redness...more
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
On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) claim construction of the phrase “consisting...more
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
EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC - Before Taranto, Stoll and Scarsi (sitting by designation). The patent’s prosecution history required a restrictive interpretation of the term “consisting essentially of.”...more
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
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
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
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
As has been noted recently (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.), fact-based decisions from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (typically from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) are reviewed under the substantial...more
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
On May 22, 2025, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s (Board) Final Written Decisions in Pfizer’s IPR2021-00925 and IPR2021-00926 finding all challenged claims of uniQure’s U.S. Patent No. 9,982,248 (“the ’248 patent”) unpatentable...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
On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination, finding that a skilled artisan would have found the term “sterile” in a UK publication to mean the same as...more
The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on March 4, 2025, that serves as valuable guidance for product-by-process claims, particularly in the context of inherency in claim construction. In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell,...more
When a prevailing challenger withdraws from an appeal in post-grant proceedings, the Director can intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 143, which is what happened in an appeal in Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart after Challenger Becton...more
It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...more
The inter partes review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been criticized for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find invalid all or at least some of the challenged claims,...more
1. Background: ImmunoGen’s Patent Application & Dispute - In 2014, ImmunoGen, Inc. (Immunogen) filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/509,809 (the ’809 application)....more
The door may now be open for additional challenges to patents covering mRNA vaccine technologies, paving the way for increased competition in the mRNA vaccine space. On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, the United States Patent...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - HD SILICON SOLUTIONS LLC v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. [OPINION] (2023-1397, 2/6/2025) (Lourie, Stoll, Cunningham) - Lourie, J. The Board affirmed the Final Written...more