News & Analysis as of

Standing Patent Infringement Article III

Knobbe Martens

Speculative Plans Are Insufficient to Establish Standing in PTAB Appeals

Knobbe Martens on

INCYTE CORPORATION v. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. - Before Moore, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Speculative plans for potentially infringing activity are insufficient to...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

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

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Navigating the PREVAIL Act: Key Impacts on Litigants as It Advances in the Senate

The PREVAIL Act is now subject to debate before the full Senate. The Act will require petitioners to certify standing, two new categories of which were recently added via a manager’s amendment....more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, September 2024: PTAB Issues Fintiv Denial on Wireless Carriers’ IPR, Federal Circuit Denies Standing for IPR Appeal

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: PTAB Issues Fintiv Denial, Leaving Wireless Carrier Patent to E.D. Texas - ...more

Jones Day

Lack of Injury In Fact Scuttles Appeal

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit dismissed Platinum Optics Technology Inc.’s (PTOT) appeal from an IPR decision, finding the challenged claims of Viavi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369 not unpatentable, because PTOT failed to establish an...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Without Concrete Evidence of Potential Infringement Liability, Petitioner Lacked Standing to Challenge PTAB’s Final Written...

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Section 337 Doesn’t Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be “Patentee”

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the language used in an invention assignment clause was subject to more than one reasonable...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2023

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Orders District Court to Consider Extrinsic Evidence in Claim Construction - In Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 22-1889, the Federal Circuit held that where a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

See Here: No Standing Based on Vague Future Plans or Adverse Priority Findings

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact....more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed....

Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Knobbe Martens

It Is Not Controversial: Factual and Legal Specificity Needed in Standing Dismissals

Knobbe Martens on

MITEK SYS., INC. V. UNITED SERVS. AUTO. ASS’N - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary:  Declaratory judgment plaintiffs must identify...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more

Knobbe Martens

No Standing in IPR Appeal for Sublicensee’s Speculative Royalty-Based Injuries

Knobbe Martens on

MODERNATX, INC. v. ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION - Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll.  Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Sublicensee’s theory of royalty-based injury was too speculative to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No More Bites at the Apple: Imminent and Non-Speculative Standing Still Required

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a patent challenger did not have Article III appellate standing to obtain review of a final Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling because the underlying...more

Knobbe Martens

No Standing for Second Bite at the Apple

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from...more

Haug Partners LLP

Standing to Appeal Post-Grant Proceedings: A Brief Review of Recent Federal Circuit Opinions

Haug Partners LLP on

On April 7, 2021, the Federal Circuit decided Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., where it held that Apple lacked standing to appeal the final written decisions in two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the U.S. Patent...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir....

Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2021 #2

ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2051 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) For the second time in two weeks, our Case of the Week concerns issues relating to Article III justiciability of an appeal from an IPR...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (January 4-8): Mooting your opponent’s appeal

Now that the new year has started, we’re seeing an uptick in precedential opinions.  This week we decided to turn back to patent appeals, taking a look at IPRs and Article III—always a fun topic.  Below we provide our usual...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (December 7-11): Standing and Invalidating the Court’s Own Local Rule

This week we talk about the most important standing decision decided by any court last week.  Ok, perhaps, it was the second most important standing decision.  Last week’s case addresses who may sue, and when they must sue...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Federal Circuit Review - Issue 278

Troutman Pepper Locke on

278-1. Federal Circuit Remands Patent Infringement Case to Answer Patent Ownership and License to Practice Questions - The Federal Circuit recently vacated a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of a patent,...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Federal Circuit Review - Issue 272

Troutman Pepper Locke on

272-1 Federal Circuit Holds a New Invalidity Challenge at the ITC is not a Change in Condition that Enables the ITC to review the Validity of a Patent or Rescind an Exclusion Order - The Federal Circuit (Court) recently...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Party May Have Standing Even with Incorrect Patent Assignment

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that a reformation of an incorrect assignment supports Article III standing and affirmed the court’s prejudgment interest award....more

88 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"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