News & Analysis as of

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

McDermott Will & Schulte

Specification controls: Written description must be clear

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s decision upholding patent validity, finding that the subject patent’s specification clearly established that the written description failed to...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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

A Weighty Decision by the Federal Circuit Reverses Patent Ineligibility Ruling

In a significant decision for patent law and the fitness equipment industry, a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a partial dismissal of PowerBlock Holdings, Inc.’s patent infringement claims brought against iFit, Inc. in...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Motivation, expectation of success negate obviousness presumption in overlapping range case

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed (on its second review) a district court’s ruling upholding the validity of patent claims related to a long-acting injectable dosing regimen, finding 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

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

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Newest Discretionary Denials on Settled Expectations - Best Practices for Petitioners and Patent Owners

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Recently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a series of discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) petitions, based on a new factor, the “settled expectations” of the Patent Owner....more

Cooley LLP

European Patent Office Clarifies Claim Interpretation

Cooley LLP on

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) has issued a new decision – G 1/24 – addressing the diverging approaches to claim interpretation when assessing patentability. Following this decision, the...more

Kilpatrick

5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability

Kilpatrick on

Kilpatrick’s Justin Krieger and Karam J. Saab recently presented at the “23rd Annual Rocky Mountain Intellectual Property & Technology Law Institute” in Westminster, Colorado. This two-day event brings together thought...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

McDermott Will & Schulte

No Blank Check: Vendor Can’t Claim Declaratory Judgment From Customer Lawsuits Alone

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action, explaining that declaratory judgment jurisdiction does not “arise merely on the basis that a party learns...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Herceptin® (trastuzumab) / Ogivri® (trastuzumab-dkst) / Herzuma® (trastuzumab-pkrb) / Ontruzant® (trastuzumab-dttb)...

Venable LLP on

Trastuzumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Lantus® / Lantus® SoloSTAR® (insulin glargine recombinant) / Basaglar® (insulin glargine) / Semglee® (insulin...

Venable LLP on

Insulin Glargine Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...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

Hogan Lovells

Two years of the Unified Patent Court – Key insights from Hogan Lovells’ analysis of revocation trends

Hogan Lovells on

On June 1, 2025, the Unified Patent Court marked its second anniversary - we are one of very few firms that has top-tier patent litigators in all major EU jurisdictions and the UK – we’ve been defending clients in...more

BCLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of Prosecution Disclaimer in Patent Families

BCLP on

In Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., 131 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the prosecution history of one patent in a patent family can limit the scope of claims in a different patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine did...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: Neulasta® (pegfilgrastim) / Fulphila® (pegfilgrastim-jmdb) / Udenyca® (pegfilgrastim-cbqv) / Ziextenzo®...

Venable LLP on

Pegfilgrastim Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple...more

405 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 17

"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