The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) that determines disputes over the issuance, reissuance, and cancellation of patent claims. The PTAB has become well known to patent litigants since the implementation in 2012 of new proceedings, including Inter Partes Review (IPR), for … Continue Reading
In 2020, the PTAB increasingly denied otherwise meritorious petitions for review under its discretionary authority, as my partner Steve Auvil and I recently discussed. Many such denials were made in view of co-pending litigation under the so-called Fintiv factors adopted last May. The reaction to the PTAB’s approach was vocal and divided, and the USPTO … Continue Reading
On March 11, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in In re PTAB of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University affirming a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to maintain the examiner’s rejection of claims involving analysis of genetic data to determine inheritance. The Federal Circuit found that the … Continue Reading
Back in July and December 2020, we wrote about the seeming rise in allegations of infringement allegations under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) in life sciences cases. We noted that in those recent cases the Federal Circuit provided in-depth analyses of the application of DOE, prosecution history estoppel, and the various other limits on the … Continue Reading
On December 21, 2020, the US Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published final rules in the Federal Register, implementing the decision in Hunting Titan, Inc. v Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH as follows regarding motions to amend in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings: The patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, … Continue Reading
On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the question of the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act (AIA). The Supreme Court will review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in what has become well known as the … Continue Reading
On August 27, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. overturning the District Court’s ruling that Genentech did not infringe the claims of US Patent No. 7,033,590 and remanded for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit’s decision was based on its finding that the District Court’s claim construction was erroneous … Continue Reading
In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commun. Tech. Holdings Ltd.,[1] the Federal Circuit definitively answered the question: “Who determines the standard-essentiality of the patent claims at issue—the court, as part of claim construction, or the jury, as part of its infringement analysis?” According to this precedential decision authored by Judge Kathleen O’Malley: “Where … Continue Reading
On July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a modified and reissued decision[1] (American Axle II) of its earlier October 3, 2019 decision[2] (American Axle I) in response to a combined petition for panel rehearing and hearing en banc concerning patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At issue were … Continue Reading
In the U.S., patent ownership vests with inventors, and each inventor can exploit their rights without accounting to the other. Neglecting to identify the true inventors of a claimed invention, and obtain assignments of their rights, can create chaos. This is what happened in Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical (Fed. Circ., 2020), where … Continue Reading
On July 13, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) designated as informative two opinions applying its now precedential Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. opinion, which set forth factors governing the exercise of the PTAB’s discretion to deny institution of a post-issuance proceeding. In these two informative opinions, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, … Continue Reading
Since Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed is the ordinary observer test. Under this test, “if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as … Continue Reading
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Federal Circuit’s 2019 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc. opinion affirming infringement under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). In doing so, the Supreme Court put to rest a more than decade-long dispute over attempts to market a generic version of … Continue Reading
On July 6, 2020, in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted a patent owner’s motion to amend, after the Board denied the motion in an August 2019 Final Written Decision. This was only the fourth such decision since … Continue Reading
Normally, a branded bio/pharm company is pleased to escape an inter partes review (IPR) unscathed. Doubly so when the challenger moves voluntarily to dismiss its appeal. So what happened in Amneal Pharms. LLC v. Almirall, LLC, No. 20-1106, to cause Almirall to insist on receiving its attorney fees for a mere month of work before … Continue Reading
In April 2020, the Supreme Court of the People’s Republic of China published the amended draft Provisions concerning interpretation of certain norms of the patent law and its implementing regulations about the administrative litigation of patent rejections and invalidations.[1] The Provisions offer the Supreme People’s Court the opportunity to address new issues and matters not … Continue Reading
Inventors and lawyers — both in-house and firm counsel — involved in the prosecution of patents have a duty of candor to the US Patent Office, and breaching that duty renders patents unenforceable for inequitable conduct. Once common in litigation, allegations of inequitable conduct faced a more stringent review after the Federal Circuit’s decision in … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC” or “Commission”) Opinion in Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware and Software Components Thereof,[1] holding that the ITC’s authority to exclude products from the United States is not limited to “articles that infringe” at the time of importation, but can include articles that infringe after … Continue Reading
Over the last decade, filings of patent lawsuits in the US rose to unprecedented highs in 2013, and remained high for a while thereafter, but have steadily declined in the last few years. The decline is variously attributed to Inter Partes review (IPR) proceedings established in 2011 under the America Invents Act (AIA) and a … Continue Reading
On April 23, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a trademark owner may recover an infringer’s profits under the federal Lanham Act without having to prove that the trademark infringement was “willful.” The ruling, in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (Docket No. 18-1233), resolved a split among the Circuit Courts on this issue. … Continue Reading
The Appellants in HZNP Medicines v. Actavis Laboratories saw their hopes for rehearing dashed on February 25, 2020, when the Federal Circuit issued an order denying their petitions for panel rehearing and en banc rehearing. The decision leaves intact an order finding that claims reciting “consisting essentially of” could be found indefinite based on ambiguities … Continue Reading
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc., f/k/a Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the non-appealability of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution decisions encompasses PTAB decisions on whether a statutory time bar applies. More specifically, 35 U.S.C. §314(d), which sets forth the finality and nonappealability of … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court recognized long ago that a patentee can overcome a prima facie showing of obviousness by presenting objective evidence of non-obviousness, referred to as secondary considerations.[1] To do so, however, the patentee must establish a nexus between the challenged claims and the objective evidence. In a newly designated precedential decision, Lectrosonics, Inc. v. … Continue Reading
It is settled law under 35 U.S.C. § 287 that when the patent owner sells or authorizes the sale of a patented product, it must comply with the statute’s marking requirement to obtain the benefit of constructive notice or else damages do not begin to accrue until actual notice is given to the infringer. In … Continue Reading
