News & Analysis as of

Patents Appeals Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Knobbe Martens

Applicant Admitted Prior Art Can (Sometimes) Show Obviousness

Knobbe Martens on

SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. In inter partes review...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: IGT v. Zynga Inc.

IGT v. Zynga Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the reviewability and merits of the Patent Trial Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter...more

ArentFox Schiff

USPTO Ends Remote PTAB Hearings Effective September 1

ArentFox Schiff on

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced that, effective September 1, all PTAB hearings will be conducted in person at USPTO offices, marking a departure from the virtual and hybrid formats adopted in recent...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 18, 2025

Alston & Bird on

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

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

PTO Defends its Recent Policy Changes Regarding Discretionary Denials

In the past few months, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Acting Director has made substantial changes to the process for, and factors considered in, exercising discretion to deny institution of an inter partes...more

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Hearings to be Held in Person

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on

A recent notice from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) informed patent owners that “Starting September 1, 2025 all Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) hearings will be held in person.” (Emphasis added)....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Applicant-admitted prior art may inform but can’t be basis for IPR challenges

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as...more

A&O Shearman

UPC Court of Appeal clarifies approach to claim construction

A&O Shearman on

Insulet v EOFlow UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Ord_69078/2024) The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Court of Appeal has issued a significant decision that provides important guidance on the interpretation of patent claims in UPC...more

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Appeal is too late to raise percolating claim construction dispute

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of noninfringement, concluding that the patent owner had improperly raised a claim construction issue for the first time on appeal – an...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

Morgan Lewis

‘Settled Expectations,’ PTAB’s New Discretionary Denial Factor, Gains Additional Footing in Dabico

Morgan Lewis on

Acting Director of the USPTO Coke Morgan Stewart recently discretionarily denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) based on a new consideration, “settled expectations,” that is, the length of time that the...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

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

Haug Partners LLP

In CRISPR Patent Dispute, the Federal Circuit Clarifies the Conception and Written Description Standards

Haug Partners LLP on

On May 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regents of the Univ. of California v. Broad Inst., Inc.1 concerning the ongoing priority dispute relating to competing inventor groups for the CRISPR-Cas9 eukaryotic...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

McDermott Will & Emery

Seeing double? Director instructs Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting...more

Knobbe Martens

CRISPR Dispute Heats Up With Recent Federal Court Decision

Knobbe Martens on

On May 12, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) revived the Regents of the University of California’s (Regents) challenge to the Broad Institute’s CRISPR-Cas9 patents, overturning a 2022 decision by...more

WilmerHale

PTAB/USPTO Update - July 2025

WilmerHale on

On June 12, the nominee for USPTO Director John Squires was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 20-2.  His nomination has been placed on the Senate’s Executive Calendar and will proceed to a floor vote....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

Knobbe Martens

No Injury, No Appeal: Patent Owners Must Show Actual Injury for Article III Standing

Knobbe Martens on

DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC - Before Moore, Clevenger and Chen.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review...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

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

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

1,279 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 52

"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