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
Reissue applications represent a very small fraction of the total number of applications filed at the USPTO each year. Indeed, at the midpoint of 2025, over 1.2 million utility applications have been filed, with less than 300...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") raised patent fees and introduced new surcharges....more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced changes to patent fees, which will take effect on Jan 19, 2025. Most current fees are subject to a 7.5% across-the-board increase while other fees are...more
The USPTO has published its final rule setting patent fees that will take effect January 19, 2025. The final rule steps back from some of the new fee structures proposed in April 2024, but still could have a significant...more
On October 2, the USPTO terminated proceedings in approximately 3,100 patent applications due to the fraudulent entry of S-signatures of registered practitioners by others. The final order noted that improper use of a...more
In December 2021, patent practice was upended by four related United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions holding that patents subject to statutory Patent Term Adjustment...more
In In re Cellect, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a later-expiring patent can be invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in view of an earlier-expiring,...more
What Congress has guaranteed, the courts have taken away - The Supreme Court is about to receive a Petition for Certiorari in a case that impacts how long a patent protects new inventions, we expect. Specifically, the case...more
The recent resurgence in ex parte reexamination demonstrates the importance of this post-grant review vehicle. It has become particularly important for patent challengers who may be estopped from requesting inter partes...more
The Federal Circuit denied Cellect, LLC's petition for rehearing en banc of the In re Cellect case, which held that the expiration of a patent for obviousness-type double patenting ("ODP") purposes is the expiration date...more
Cellect owned four patents with claims that were found unpatentable by the PTAB in ex parte reexaminations for obviousness-type double patenting. The patents were granted Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”) for the Office’s delay...more
2024 is upon us and it’s going to be another busy year for intellectual property law. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, you’ll hear Wolf Greenfield attorneys from a variety of practice areas offering their...more
This case addresses how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) interacts with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Background - Cellect sued Samsung Electronics, Co. for infringement of four patents. Subsequently, Samsung...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re Cellect confirmed that, when considering whether a reference patent invalidates for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) a patent having a term...more
IPR Petitioners Must Be Permitted to Respond to Claim Constructions First Proposed in Patent Owner Response - In Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 22-1532, the Federal Circuit held that where a patent owner in...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit held that obviousness-type double patenting trumps patent term adjustment, opening the door for invalidity attacks that to date had been questionable. In re Cellect was an appeal from a...more
IN RE CELLECT, LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analyses for patents with Patent Term Adjustments are based on the...more
In Sawstop Holding LLC v. Vidal the Federal Circuit confirmed what many practitioners suspected— the Patent and Trademark Office will only award a patent term adjustment to offset a delay caused by appellate review of a...more
Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is additional patent term for U.S. patents to compensate for delay in issuance. The statute (35 U.S.C. § 154(b)) provides three bases for PTA: delayed response by the USPTO (“A delay”), failure to...more
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, finding that the USPTO did not...more
On September 14, in SawStop Holding LLC v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit held that the owner of two patents was not entitled to patent term adjustment (PTA) based on delays associated with appeals of the USPTO’s initial...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two district court decisions, finding that a patent owner who only partially prevailed in one of two appeals was not entitled to any additional patent term adjustments...more
Did you remember to send your favorite examiner a Valentine’s Day card? Okay, so maybe that’s not the typical applicant/examiner relationship. But this week we do look at some potential consequences from the back and forth...more
On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released final rules (the “Rules”) implementing changes to how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is calculated in certain circumstances in view of Supernus Pharms.,...more