5 Key Takeaways | Making Sense of §102 Public Use and On Sale Bars to Patentability
Building a Cost-Effective Global Patent Portfolio Using the Netherlands
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Conflicting Application in China’s Patent System
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
The Patent Process | Interview with Patent Attorney, Robert Greenspoon
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Nonpublication Requests For Patent Applications: Disadvantages
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
What the First-to-File Patent Change Means (And What IP Strategists Should Do About It)
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
Received wisdom is that inter partes review proceedings are limited to prior art as defined by patents and printed publications. But in recently decided Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., another prior...more
INGENICO INC. v. IOENGINE, LLC Before Dyk, Prost, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. IPR estoppel does not preclude reliance on public-use evidence that is substantively...more
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
Apple Inc., et. al v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (March 4, 2025) (Moore (Chief Judge), Prost and Stoll) (on appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) [WAIVER; OBVIOUSNESS] ....more
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
The Federal Circuit recently clarified in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not extend to physical systems described in prior art patents or printed publications....more
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
When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...more
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures....more
The Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending...more
Key Takeaways - - A recent Federal Circuit decision in a case involving an inter partes review (IPR) significantly narrowed a patentee’s ability to rely on estoppel to block a defendant from raising invalidity grounds. -...more
In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as...more
This LawFlash details strategic takeaways and practical lessons from the recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case on IPR estoppel, evidence of public use, and jury instructions on specific issues....more
In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more
In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more
On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found claims of two IOENGINE, LLC (“IOENGINE”)...more
In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more
On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC that narrows the scope of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), resolving a longstanding district...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of statutory estoppel that applies in District Court after the PTAB issues a final written decision in a related inter partes review (IPR). Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, No....more
On May 7, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico, Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, effectively holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel cannot preclude an IPR petitioner from advancing in a district court trial an...more
In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more
The legal landscape quaked, and clients and counsel continue to navigate the tremors. More than 40 years of precedent was upended in May 2024 when a federal circuit court struck down the Rosen-Durling test for assessing...more
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Apr. 23, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Lourie and Prost. Qualcomm owns a patent related to integrated circuit devices using multiple power...more
Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-1208, -1209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2025) - For a second time in this case, the Federal Circuit considered the proper role of “Applicant Admitted Prior Art” in an inter partes...more