News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office Statutory Interpretation Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

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 -
Haug Partners LLP

Settled Expectations: How the PTAB’s New Discretionary Denial Framework Is Reshaping IPR Strategy

Haug Partners LLP on

In a recent article, Haug Partners previewed that the impact of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) new bifurcated approach to discretionary denial requests would depend on how the new Acting USPTO Director, Coke...more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO: No Bright-Line Rule on When Expectations Become Settled

Fish & Richardson on

On June 18, 2025, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Stewart issued a discretionary denial decision in Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, granting the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial...more

Irwin IP LLP

No Rhythm, No Review: USPTO Director Skips a Beat on IPRs. 

Irwin IP LLP on

iRhythm Technologies, Inc., v. Welch Allyn, Inc., IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, IPR2025-00378 (P.T.A.B. June 6, 2025) - On June 6, 2025, United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)...more

Baker Donelson

Insights from Month One of Acting Director Stewart's Decisions on Discretionary Denial under the New Interim Processes for PTAB...

Baker Donelson on

Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Patent Office Denial of “Late” Inter Partes Review Petitions Changes Expectations

On June 6, 2025, the acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision in iRhythm Technologies v. Welch Allyn, Inc.1 that initiates a new basis for discretionary denial...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

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Discretionary Denials—Act II

On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office fundamentally changed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) initially considers petitions in post grant proceedings under the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

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

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

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Understanding the PTAB’s Recent Informative Decision: Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more

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

2024 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, July 2024: Impact of the End of Chevron on USPTO; PTAB Filings Are Up; and More

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

Northern District of California Dismisses Challenge to PTAB’s Fintiv Factors

On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019)

In this case, the question ultimately answered by the Federal Circuit was a straightforward question of statutory interpretation:  in determining whether a party is time-barred from filing a petition for inter partes review...more

15 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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