On April 1, 2026, USPTO Director Squires issued an Official Gazette Notice allowing patent owners a limited amount of time to respond to a request for ex parte reexamination (EPR) before the Office determines whether the request presents a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). Under this new procedure, within 30 days of being served … Continue Reading
After over a decade of litigating, winning multiple appeals and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and finally earning a $185 million jury verdict against cybersecurity giant Gen Digital Inc. that operates the Norton antivirus brand, Columbia University saw a massive setback with last week’s Federal Circuit opinion. The opinion touched on several topics in modern … Continue Reading
On March 11, 2026, USPTO Director Squires issued a memorandum that sets forth additional criteria for IPR and PGR petitioners and patent owners to consider in arguing whether petitions should be granted. Two of the new criteria focus on ties of patented technology to the United States. A third criterion considers the size of a … Continue Reading
There have been hundreds of summary discretionary denial decisions from the Acting Director regarding inter partes review and post-grant review. We blogged on these decisions here, here, here, here, and here. On October 17, 2025, newly appointed Director Squires issued an open letter and memorandum to the public and to the Patent Trial and Appeal … Continue Reading
Since the iRhythm IPRs on which we blogged recently, there have been two more (actually, many more) decisions that are leaving petitioners scratching their heads. In Dabico, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied an IPR petition because of “settled expectations,” the same rationale as in iRhythm. The Acting Director went further and criticized the petitioner … Continue Reading
In a set of astonishing identical Director Review decisions, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied five IPR petitions whose proceedings would have concluded over seven months before the underlying patent infringement suit would have gone to trial. The Acting Director reasoned that the petitioner waited too long to file its IPR petitions because, even though … Continue Reading
The patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) allows the USPTO Director to deny institution of an IPR when “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In IPR practice, relying on prior art that already had been before the PTO is perfectly acceptable. Under the 2020 decision in … Continue Reading
As provided by statute at 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) may challenge the claims of a patent “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” Does this provision permit IPR challenges based on Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) ― art identified in the … Continue Reading
In Part I of this set of blogs, we discussed the impact of the rescission of former USPTO Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We also discussed Chief Judge Boalick’s Guidance Memorandum on the rescission. In Part II, we examine a … Continue Reading
Recent actions from the USPTO have engendered a great deal of discussion among the bar practicing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On February 28, 2025, acting Director Stewart rescinded former Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Board. On March 24, 2025, Chief Judge Boalick … Continue Reading
In a May 10, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the USPTO proposed sweeping changes in the rules governing the filing of terminal disclaimers. If the USPTO implements the proposed changes, entire patent families could be wiped out if just one claim of one patent in the family is found invalid over prior art. Patent … Continue Reading
A recent Federal Circuit decision, Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, provides some interesting insights into patent challenge strategies, and their consequences, when a potentially infringing product is not yet on the market. Allgenesis, which has been developing a pterygium treatment product using nintedanib, filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition to try to … Continue Reading
On March 24, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, affirming — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims … Continue Reading
We previously wrote that a co-pending ITC Section 337 investigation virtually guarantees that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will exercise its discretionary power to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a) when considering a petition for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR). See ITC Section 337: Kiss of Death … 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
In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corporation, No.2015-1242 (en banc), the Federal Circuit has overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s longstanding interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)’s time bar for inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions, finding that the service of any civil complaint for patent infringement— even if later dismissed—starts the clock on the statute’s one-year … Continue Reading
As we previously reported (here), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in an August 2017 decision in Oil Dri Corp. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 1-15-cv-01067 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2017) joined the seeming trend of courts interpreting estoppel against patent challengers in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings more broadly … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit has issued its long-awaited ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, with the majority of the en banc court agreeing that the requirement by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that patent owners have the burden to prove the patentability of amended claims proffered during inter partes review (IPR) … Continue Reading
The America Invents Act of 2011, which ushered in a new regime for post-grant patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), provides that any patent challenger initiating an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the PTO “may not assert” an invalidity ground in a patent case in U.S. district court or in … Continue Reading
