News & Analysis as of

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

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

McDermott Will & Schulte on

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

McCarter & English, LLP

New Patent Office Guidance Raises Bar for IPR Petitioners

McCarter & English, LLP on

The Patent Office recently announced that it will begin enforcing a rule that requires that inter partes review (IPR) petitions “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed...more

ArentFox Schiff

USPTO Restricts Use of AAPA and Other General Knowledge Evidence in IPR Proceedings

ArentFox Schiff on

On July 31, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new memorandum announcing that it will begin enforcing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) that requires petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceeding to “specify...more

Jones Day

Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO Limits Use of General Knowledge in IPR Proceedings

Fish & Richardson on

On July 31, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum (“Memo”) announcing that the Office will renew enforcement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“Rule 104(b)(4)”) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings....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

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Removes Reliance on Applicant Admitted Prior Art in IPR Proceedings

Womble Bond Dickinson on

On July 31, 2025, the acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a memorandum making a significant change in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) practice and...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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 201: The Risks and Rewards of Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more

Saul Ewing LLP

What Intellectual Property Owners Need to Know Today About Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Saul Ewing LLP on

What You Need to Know: • Instead of filing multiple applications claiming different aspects of an invention but not sharing a single priority chain, patentees should strive to file highly comprehensive applications that...more

Jones Day

Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

Jones Day on

On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more

Venable LLP

Spotlight On: Actemra® (tocilizumab) / Tofidence™ (tocilizumab-bavi) / Tyenne® (tocilizumab-aazg) / Avtozma® (tocilizumab-anoh) -...

Venable LLP on

Tocilizumab Challenged Claim Types in IPRs: Claims are counted in each IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple IPRs are counted more than once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Invalidity Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – February 2025

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

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

35 U.S.C. § 112 in IPR: I know you cannot use it to invalidate a claim, but how about breaking the priority chain?

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

It is well established that “a petitioner in an inter partes review … is not permitted to assert a ground of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Dexcowin Golabl, Inc. v. Aribex, Inc., IPR2016-00436, Paper 12 (PTAB July 7,...more

73 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
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