News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Patent Validity

Knobbe Martens

[Webinar] Dodging Denial: Winning Strategies for PTAB Petitions Post-Fintiv - September 18th, 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm PT

Knobbe Martens on

Join Knobbe Martens partners Christy Lea and Ted Cannon for a strategic deep dive into the evolving PTAB landscape. With discretionary denials on the rise following the USPTO’s March 24 guidance, this session will equip...more

McCarter & English, LLP

Navigating the Landscape of Patent Challenges at the USPTO

Challengers striving to beat higher-ranked opponents at the US Open tennis tournament happening now in New York are not the only challengers facing tricky new situations. Parties wishing to challenge the validity of US...more

Goodwin

UK Court of Appeal Upholds Moderna mRNA Patent Against Pfizer/BioNTech

Goodwin on

On August 1, 2025, a UK Court of Appeal upheld the validity of Moderna’s European Patent No. 3,590,949 (“EP’949”) in a dispute with Pfizer and BioNTech. The decision affirmed a July 2024 UK High Court ruling finding that...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Collateral estoppel remains inapplicable to unchallenged IPR claims

Returning to its decision in Kroy IP, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving undisturbed its prior opinion that collateral estoppel does not apply...more

McCarter & English, LLP

New Patent Office Guidance Raises Bar for IPR Petitioners

The Patent Office recently announced that it will begin enforcing a rule that requires that inter partes review (IPR) petitions “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed...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

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

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

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Plans for Future Activity Created a Substantial Risk of Future Infringement

Jones Day on

Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Implicit And Incorrect Claim Construction Of “Between 1 And 10”

A&O Shearman on

On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more

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

Broadening on Reissue is Based on the Scope of the Language of the Claims, Not the Original Intention of the Applicant

Takeaways: - Claim construction for determining whether reissue claims are improperly broadened is based on fundamental claim construction cannons and not applicant intentions. - Patent Owners should check patented claims...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

Jones Day on

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

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

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

Federal Circuit Reaffirms “Carried Forward” Requirement for Provisional Priority in Reexams and Reissues

Requesters should make sure to double cite to non-provisional and provisional if they require a provisional filing date for prior art....more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Federal Circuit Affirms Stem Cell Product-by-Process Claims: Lessons in Claim Construction and Inherency from Restem LLV v. Jadi...

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

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

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

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

Recent Updates at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Recent changes at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have brought uncertainty to inter partes review and post-grant review practitioners before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). These procedural and...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process....more

Jones Day

PTAB Decides Concurrent IPR and PGR Petitions After Resolving Priority Date Dispute

Jones Day on

In anticipating a dispute over whether the America Invents Act would apply, Petitioner MPL Brands NV, Inc. (“MPL”) filed concurrent petitions for both inter partes review and post-grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

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

Jones Day

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the General...more

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

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s holding of Non-Obviousness of Standard Adopted 3G Technology

The recent decision by the Federal Circuit in Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., issued on January 2, 2025, overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) factual and legal holdings in the final...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) - January 2025

Venable LLP on

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

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

The PREVAIL Act Could Change PTAB Trials in a Big Way

Since the America Invents Act (“AIA”) established a new venue for hearing patent disputes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), much ink has been spilled regarding the impacts of this forum on patent litigation and the...more

Haug Partners LLP

United Therapeutics Corporation Certiorari Petition Denied, Creates a Lose-Lose Situation

Haug Partners LLP on

On Monday, October 7, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) denied United Therapeutics Corporation (“UTC”) petition for certiorari clearing the way for Liquidia Corporation (“Liquidia”) to launch its Yutrpia® drug product....more

174 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"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