News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office › Patent Litigation › Prior Art

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 -
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

WilmerHale

PTAB/USPTO Update - August 2025

WilmerHale on

On July 31, 2025, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Coke Morgan Stewart issued a memorandum indicating that the USPTO “will enforce and no longer waive the requirement of...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Intellectual Property Report August 2025

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Key Takeaway: When facing a patent infringement suit, accused infringers traditionally turned to inter partes review (IPR) as a faster, more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. However, recent guidance...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Ex Parte Reexaminations Poised to Make a Quiet Comeback: Discretionary Denial Guidance for Inter Partes Reexamination May Increase...

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Imagine this. You were just served with a Complaint for patent infringement and learn that, some years ago, your competitor was granted a patent giving them a legal monopoly to exclude others, including you, from making,...more

Knobbe Martens

Applicant Admitted Prior Art Can (Sometimes) Show Obviousness

Knobbe Martens on

SHOCKWAVE MED., INC., V. CARDIOVASCULAR SYS., INC. - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-00405. In inter partes review...more

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

What Should the USPTO Consider Changing for Implementing Post-Final Written Decision Estoppel in Ex Parte Reexamination Based on...

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

The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more

Jones Day

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Holds Applicant Admitted Prior Art Cannot Form “Part of the Basis” of an IPR Ground, Reversing a PTAB Win for...

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: Strategic Insights for Petitioners and Patent Owners in a Shifting Landscape

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

A set of recently issued memoranda by United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) officials has re-energized the debate around discretionary denials in post-grant trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)....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

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Patent Obviousness in the AI Era

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

The proliferation of artificial intelligence (“AI”) presents complex challenges for intellectual property, especially within patent law. In particular, the obviousness inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be susceptible to...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

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

Volpe Koenig

When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn

Volpe Koenig on

Patent attorneys are well-versed in the function of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution. We understand that listing prior art in an IDS satisfies the duty of candor, helps insulate patents from...more

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

Latest Director Discretionary Denial Decision in iRhythm Provides Valuable Insights

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

On June 6, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Stewart issued a decision in iRhythm Tech. v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, Paper 10 (and four related IPRs), which granted Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. This is...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Priority Denied, Patent Derailed: When One Filing Cancels Out the Other

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP on

On April 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a decision In re: Bonnie Iris McDonald Floyd that underscores a critical and often overlooked risk in design patent prosecution: relying on a utility patent application for...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Undetectable Amount of Magnification IS Magnification

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

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

Foley Hoag LLP

Reshaped IPR Landscape: Narrower Estoppel and Fewer New Cases

Foley Hoag LLP on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Provides Clarity on Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) in IPRs

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Patents That Merely Claim Applying Machine Learning to a New Field of Use Are Not Patent Eligible

WilmerHale on

Stark, J. Sage Products, LLC (“Sage”) challenged a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding two of Sage’s patents unpatentable. After the original appellee, Becton, Dickinson and Co., withdrew, the Director of...more

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Federal Circuit Defines Scope of IPR Estoppel

Vinson & Elkins LLP on

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

The Rise of System Art: The Federal Circuit Shelters System Art From IPR Estoppel

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Prior art patents and publications have long been the primary source for anticipation and obviousness assertions by defendants in IP litigation. System art—an actual system or device—is a less common source of prior art due...more

BakerHostetler

US Patents Set to Issue 33 Percent Faster from the Notification Date

BakerHostetler on

Starting May 13, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will accelerate the time between issue notification and the issue date of a patent. That is, the time frame will be cut from about three weeks to two weeks –...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Director Vacates Decision to Institute: Investment in Parallel Proceeding Outweighed Petitioner’s Sotera Stipulation

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on...more

279 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 12
Next »

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide