News & Analysis as of

Patents Appeals United States Patent and Trademark Office

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

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC

Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC, Appeal No. 2024-2191 (Fed. Cir. July 17, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that prosecution history disclaimer applies to...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

MoFo Life Sciences

A Tip for Improving Your “Improved” Jepson Claim: Include Written Description Support

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...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

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

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

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

U.S. IP Update – June 2025

Sterne Kessler’s U.S. IP Update is a newsletter delivering the latest developments in U.S. intellectual property law, tailored for companies and legal counsel in Korea. Stay informed on key court decisions, policy changes,...more

Foley Hoag LLP

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO Further Aligns Claim Construction With U.S. and U.K.

Foley Hoag LLP on

Key Takeaways: - The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its opinion in G1/24 on June 18, 2025 resolving divergent case law on how patent claims should be interpreted at the EPO. - The...more

Jones Day

April 2025 Institution Rate Slips Below 45 Percent

Jones Day on

The PTAB has published its monthly statistics wrap up for April 2025. As expected, those statistics show a significant decline in the institution rate compared to the first six months of the fiscal year. In those first six...more

WilmerHale

PTAB/USPTO Update - June 2025

WilmerHale on

On May 27, the USPTO announced the completion of a critical upgrade to the agency’s core financial system, Momentum, to streamline maintenance of the fee payment systems as well as several internal functions....more

Jones Day

Acting Director Releases First Decisions Under New Bifurcated Process

Jones Day on

On May 16, 2025, USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart released the first four discretionary denial decisions under the PTAB’s new process. Under the new process, the parties separately brief discretionary denial issues...more

Fish & Richardson

Navigating Change at the USPTO

Fish & Richardson on

While it may seem like the only constant at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is change, that sentiment rings especially true in 2025. With a new presidential administration in the White House and numerous...more

A&O Shearman

Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Holds That Conception Does Not Require Certainty of Success

A&O Shearman on

On May 12, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in an interference proceeding concluding that the Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Section 101 Patent Eligibility Roundup: An Informative PTAB Decision, Squires Speaks

Holland & Knight LLP on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated a recent decision as informative. In the decision, Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO), ended the petitioner's challenges, noting that...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Discretionary Denials—Act II

On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office fundamentally changed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) initially considers petitions in post grant proceedings under the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Provides Clarity on Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in IPRs

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute

The Regents of the University of California v. The Broad Institute, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) Must an inventor know their invention will work to demonstrate that they “conceived” of it? ...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

The Narrow Pathway to Patent Eligibility in the Federal Circuit

The last 11 years have taught us much about the Federal Circuit; namely, that a majority of the judges simply do not seem to appreciate software. Given the statements that several have made in opinions, one might be able to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Patents That Merely Claim Applying Machine Learning to a New Field of Use Are Not Patent Eligible

WilmerHale on

Stark, J. Sage Products, LLC (“Sage”) challenged a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding two of Sage’s patents unpatentable. After the original appellee, Becton, Dickinson and Co., withdrew, the Director of...more

474 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 19

"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