News & Analysis as of

Patents Patent Litigation Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Morgan Lewis

USPTO Tightens Limits on AAPA Use in IPRs Following Qualcomm Precedent

Morgan Lewis on

A recent memo from the acting director of the US Patent and Trademark Office directs the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject inter partes review (IPR) petitions that use “applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert...more

Jones Day

Acting Director Reverses Previous Discretionary Denial

Jones Day on

For the first time under the bifurcated institution procedures, the Acting Director reversed her own prior discretionary denial, citing changed circumstances based on a settlement in the parallel district court litigation. ...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

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

U.S. IP Update – August 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

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

Federal Circuit Issues First Decision on Litigated AIA Derivation Proceeding

In Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time an appeal from a derivation proceeding litigated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act (AIA)....more

Jones Day

Institution Denied Based on Parallel Proceeding and Prior Denial

Jones Day on

On December 6, 2024, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) filed three separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,866,438 (“the ’438 Patent”), which is assigned to Entropic Communications,...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

DexCom, Inc. v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review prompted by an infringement allegation in DexCom, Inc. v....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

Fenwick & West LLP

Navigating the PTAB’s New Discretionary Denial Landscape: Strategic Shifts for Patent Challenges

Fenwick & West LLP on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has undergone significant changes in how it evaluates patent challenges, creating both opportunities and obstacles for technology and life sciences companies....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

Jones Day

Two Week Deadline for PTAB to Issue Notice of Filing Date Accorded

Jones Day on

On July 18, 2025, Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge for the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”), announced that, absent good cause, the PTAB will issue a Notice of Filing Date Accorded within 14 days...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

American Science and Engineering, Inc. v. Stewart (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Under Dickinson v. Zurko courts (specifically, the Federal Circuit) should defer to factual determinations by administrative agencies like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office unless they are not supported by substantial...more

Jones Day

Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more

Jones Day

Acting Director Clarifies Multi-Petition Policy for Competing Constructions

Jones Day on

On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

USPTO Director: Board Abused Discretion by Instituting Two IPRs on Same Patent Based on Competing Claim Constructions

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd.

Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance, Co. Ltd. v. CH Lighting Technology Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2023-1715 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed three issues arising from a...more

Mayer Brown

Reinvigorated Enforcement of Evidentiary Rules and the Permissible Uses of General Knowledge in Inter Partes Review

Mayer Brown on

On July 31, 2025, the Acting Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant memorandum that alters the evidentiary landscape for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ex Parte Reexaminations Poised to Make a Quiet Comeback: Discretionary Denial Guidance for Inter Partes Reexamination May Increase...

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Imagine this. You were just served with a Complaint for patent infringement and learn that, some years ago, your competitor was granted a patent giving them a legal monopoly to exclude others, including you, from making,...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 25, 2025

Alston & Bird on

IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 2023-2262 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) July 22, 2025). Opinion by Taranto, joined by Prost and Reyna. IGT owns a patent related to secured virtual networks in gaming environments. After the patent application was...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Game over: Prior interference doesn’t preclude IPR proceeding

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, concluding that the Board’s decision to not apply...more

Goodwin

Fresenius Files Two IPRs Against Regeneron Aflibercept Patents

Goodwin on

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

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

A&O Shearman

Non-Application Of Interference Estoppel By PTAB In An IPR Institution Decision Found To Be Unreviewable

A&O Shearman on

On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the “PTAB”) decision not to apply interference estoppel and, therefore, to institute an inter partes review...more

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

What Should the USPTO Consider Changing for Implementing Post-Final Written Decision Estoppel in Ex Parte Reexamination Based on...

The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more

2,936 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 118

"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