5 Key Takeaways | Rolling with the Legal Punches: Resetting Patent Strategy to Address Changes in the Law
Verdict in T-Cell Immunotherapy IP Case Tests 'Reasonable Royalty' Concept for Large Damage Awards
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (24-1097) offers a compelling look at the evolving doctrine of prosecution laches, the written description requirement, and the practical realities of patent...more
For startups sensitive to cash burn rate, provisional patent applications often seem like the perfect solution—lower filing fees, simplified requirements, and a full year to file the "real" application. However, this...more
A patent applicant dissatisfied by an patent examiner's rejection of that applicant's claims in ex parte prosecution has recourse by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under 35 U.S.C. § 134, and to the Federal...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a non-precedential Rule 36 affirmance of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in In re Adhami, No. 2024-1218, 2025 WL 1949797 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2025)....more
It is well established that an enantiomerically pure compound exhibiting advantageous properties not present in its isomer or its corresponding racemic mixture, can be patented even if its corresponding racemic mixtures are...more
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
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
In its recent In re Floyd opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject a design applicant’s priority claim to an earlier utility filing for...more
Patent claims reciting compounds where at least one group of a compound genus is defined by its function are common. For example, familiar claim terms such as “chelating moiety,” “linker,” and “binding moiety” describe a...more
Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception...more
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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that highlights a risk in design patent prosecution—specifically, attempting to claim priority to a utility application. In re Floyd, the Federal...more
Current written description jurisprudence can make it difficult to obtain broad antibody patents, leading practitioners to explore alternative claiming strategies in an effort to bypass the limited scope afforded under the...more
On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more
In In re: Xencor, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the limiting preamble of a Jepson claim must be supported by the specification with “sufficient written description.” In its decision, the...more
Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding a decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) that a published patent application...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found a Jepson claim unpatentable where the specification did not provide adequate written description for the portion of the claim purporting to recite what was already well...more
On September 21, 2023, the PTAB denied United Services Automobile Association’s petition to institute inter partes review of Auto Telematics’s U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487. IPR2023-00519, Paper 10....more
We are excited to announce Venable’s inaugural Life Sciences Webinar Series. This month-long series will explore the intricacies and latest developments that shape the life sciences industry. Join us as we hear from our...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Amgen’s broad genus claims to cholesterol-lowering antibodies are invalid for lack of enablement....more
Last month the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB inter partes review (IPR) decision finding that the University of Minnesota’s patent claim directed to the anti-cancer drug sofosbuvir was not adequately supported by the written...more
Hosted by C5, the 16th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe returns 23-24 May, at the DoubleTree by Hilton Amsterdam Central Station, Amsterdam with curated programing for you to gain the knowledge and...more
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., Appeal No. 21-2168 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week focuses on the written description requirement...more
Smith & Nephew petitioned for IPR of Arthrex’s ’907 patent, which claims a surgical device with an “eyelet” through which a suture is threaded. Smith & Nephew argued in relevant part that certain claims were anticipated by a...more