News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Life Sciences Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Jones Day

Physical Products Cannot Form Basis of an IPR

Jones Day on

On May 1, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,140,841 in the case of Aardevo North America, LLC v. Agventure B.V. The patent in question, owned...more

MoFo Life Sciences

Is Your Claim Open or Closed? Claim Construction Takes on a New Meaning in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

MoFo Life Sciences on

On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) claim construction of the phrase “consisting...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

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

White & Case LLP

Federal Circuit Reinforces Standard for Prior Art Enablement in CRISPR Dispute

White & Case LLP on

On June 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp. (No. 23-2186), addressing enablement of prior art references for disputed CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing...more

McDermott Will & Emery

CRISPR Clarity: Enablement Is Analyzed Differently Under §§ 102 and 112

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Trial And Appeal Board Decision, Finding Claims Of Patents Covering CRISPR Guide RNA Technology As...

A&O Shearman on

On June 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision invalidating two patents owned by Agilent Technologies. The patents at issue, U.S. Patent...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

DLA Piper

What is a “Clear and Unmistakable” Prosecution History Disclaimer?

DLA Piper on

The Federal Circuit’s March 21, 2025 decision in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. et al. (No. 2023-2045) and the recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Delegated Rehearing Panel decision in SynAffix B.V. v....more

Jones Day

Expert Testimony Supporting POPR Can Be An Effective Strategy

Jones Day on

It is relatively uncommon for parties to submit expert declarations in the preliminary-response phase of an IPR proceeding, but recently the Patent Owner in Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc. effectively used that...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

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision Regarding DNA Sampling Patent

A&O Shearman on

On January 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rejecting a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277...more

Knobbe Martens

Routine Optimization of Result-Effective Variable Can Bridge Gaps in Prior Art

Knobbe Martens on

PFIZER INC. v. SANOFI PASTEUR INC. - Before Lourie, Bryson, and Stark.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2024)

Last week the Federal Circuit handed down a pair of non-precedential decisions affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  This post concerns the decision in Medtronic, Inc....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions

In Incept v. Palette Life Sciences 21-2063, 21-2065 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2023), the case addresses the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations in two IPRs (IPR2020-00002 and IPR2020-00004), where the Board held the...more

Irwin IP LLP

CAFC Holds Priority Favors True Trailblazers, Not Maze-Like Paths Through a Forest of Prior Applications: Regents of the...

Irwin IP LLP on

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently upheld a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found some claims of U.S. Patent 8,815,830 (“the ’830 patent”) unpatentable as anticipated....more

A&O Shearman

PTAB Decision Invalidating Claims Finding Lack of Written Description and Later Priority Date Upheld by Federal Circuit

A&O Shearman on

Procedural History - Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Case No. 2021-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) is an appeal by the Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Minnesota”) from a final...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

Knobbe Martens

Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive

Knobbe Martens on

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A presumption of obviousness based on overlapping ranges requires showing...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

When (Patent) Success Isn’t Obvious

In Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, the Federal Circuit grappled with the issue of whether claims directed to methods and systems for inactivating bacteria using blue light were obvious in view of a prior art...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Invalidation of Patent Claims for an Artificial Heart Valve (Snyders vs St. Jude)

Knobbe Martens on

On October 5, 2021, the U.S. Federal Circuit reversed a finding of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for patent claims related to an “artificial valve for repairing a damaged heart valve.”  ...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

PTAB Life Sciences Report - February 2020

About the PTAB Life Sciences Report:  We will periodically report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Abbott Laboratories v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. PTAB Petition:  IPR2020-00480; filed January...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Tabbed Spreadsheets Patent Eligible and Claims Directed to Tracking Changes in Documents Ineligible Under Section 101 - In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No....more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Attorney General’s Office May Weigh In on Constitutionality of IPRs involving Pre-AIA Patents

Troutman Pepper Locke on

The 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) provided a variety of new ways to administratively challenge patents, including the now widely used inter partes review (“IPR”) procedure. In two recent appeals of IPR decisions, Genentech...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Petitioner Beware – Claim Construction Choice Can Make or Break Your Case

Addressing the requirements to institute an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a petition because it failed to map the challenged claims to the asserted prior art using the claim...more

28 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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