News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office Claim Construction

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.... more +
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.    less -
McDermott Will & Schulte

Use of general knowledge in IPR petitions will no longer work

On July 31, 2025, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memo clarifying the requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) for inter partes review (IPR) petitions. The memo emphasizes that petitioners must clearly...more

Alston & Bird

Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter | August 2025

Alston & Bird on

Welcome to the Intellectual Property Litigation Newsletter, our review of decisions and trends in the intellectual property arena. In this edition, we learn that duping the court can prove costly, excluding a witness may...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

Irwin IP LLP

Arguments in Prosecution History Limit Design Patents Too 

Irwin IP LLP on

The USPTO must reject a patent application if the applicant’s claim covers what the prior art already disclosed, and patent applicants may respond to such rejections with arguments that what they claimed was different. ...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

Reminder: “Consisting essentially of” Is U.S. Patent Claim Language Needing Interpretation

Womble Bond Dickinson on

On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma in which the court interpreted the transition phrase “consisting essentially of” to be a closed term excluding other...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Federal Circuit Confirms: Prosecution History Disclaimer Applies to Design Patents Too

Fenwick & West LLP on

Many industries rely on design patents to protect the look and feel of their products—especially when aesthetics drive customer interest, brand identity, or market differentiation. In Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company...more

Dickinson Wright

2025 Patent Filing Costs Rise: USPTO Fee Update and Response Strategies

Dickinson Wright on

In January 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a broad set of fee increases and structural adjustments intended to address rising operational costs and encourage more efficient patent...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Lexicography: Clear And Unequivocal

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes lexicography in the context of claim construction. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals owns U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 (parent) and 11,382,979 (child). These patents relate to biodegradable...more

A&O Shearman

The Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Use Of Traditional Construction Of “Consisting Essentially Of”

A&O Shearman on

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the...more

MoFo Life Sciences

A Tip for Improving Your “Improved” Jepson Claim: Include Written Description Support

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Seeing double? Director instructs Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending June 27, 2025

Alston & Bird on

CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., Nos. IPR2025-00068, -00070 (June 25, 2025) (designated informative on June 26, 2025). Order by Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of...more

Jones Day

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

Jones Day on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO Further Aligns Claim Construction With U.S. and U.K.

Foley Hoag LLP on

Key Takeaways: - The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its opinion in G1/24 on June 18, 2025 resolving divergent case law on how patent claims should be interpreted at the EPO. - The...more

Jones Day

Applying Fintiv to a Parallel ITC Investigation

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”), exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Undetectable Amount of Magnification IS Magnification

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

The Narrow Pathway to Patent Eligibility in the Federal Circuit

The last 11 years have taught us much about the Federal Circuit; namely, that a majority of the judges simply do not seem to appreciate software. Given the statements that several have made in opinions, one might be able to...more

Irwin IP LLP

Fair Shot at Privity: Director Reverses PTAB on Discovery Ruling 

Irwin IP LLP on

Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2023-01242, -01243, -01244 (USPTO Apr. 30, 2025) - The USPTO Director’s recent decision in Semiconductor Components v. Greenthread squarely addresses a recurring...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit rendered an opinion in Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. surrounding U.S. Patent No. 9,289,688 (the '688 patent").  This marks the second time that the Federal Circuit has weighed...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Claims May Bend But Are Not Broken: Judge Locke Rejects Indefiniteness Arguments in Fiber Optic Cables Case

In a patent-infringement case involving fiber-optic-cable assemblies, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke (E.D.N.Y.) recently rejected defendants’ arguments that two terms in the patent claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Breaking Down the Bifurcated PTAB Review Process: What the USPTO’s Recent FAQ Drop Reveals

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memorandum introducing a new interim process for handling institution decisions in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs). The Office just...more

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Method of Treatment Claim’s Limiting Preamble Must Satisfy the Written Description Requirement

On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Broadening Your (Patent) Protection

In the fast-paced world of innovation, inventors sometimes realize that their patents do not fully protect their inventions until after the patent issues. If the patent family has an application still pending at the patent...more

347 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 14

"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