The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential an Order outlining six factors the Board considers when determining whether to apply its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review due to a trial date set to occur earlier than the Board’s final written decision.
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court recently held that a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent cannot be reviewed on appeal, even if the institution of the IPR was in violation of the one-year time bar in the America Invents Act.
In these unforeseen and unique circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, we want to keep our clients abreast of how patent and trademark offices around the world are handling deadlines and other issues.
Adding another tool to intellectual property owners’ arsenal for combatting infringing products, Amazon has launched a pilot program to efficiently identify and resolve third-party patent infringement on the Amazon marketplace.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a ruling earlier this month that affirmed a District Court decision that certain medical diagnostic claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 (the '820 patent) were invalid.
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, No. 2017-1690 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018) (Roche), marks yet another decision from the Federal Circuit affirming invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101 of diagnostic claims.
In E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit recently reversed a finding of non-obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR) decision issued by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (board).
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changes the landscape for defendants in patent infringement cases, and in certain circumstances may limit their ability to challenge a plaintiff’s patent using the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding established in 2012.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision dealing with patent damages for lost sales in foreign jurisdictions. WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 586 U.S. ____ (June 22, 2018), Case No. 16-1011 (Thomas J). The Court concluded that U.S. patent owners can get damages from overseas sales lost through infringement.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the office) recently issued guidance on the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu on post-grant patent proceedings, specifically inter partes review.
This past October, in Amgen v. Sanofi (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit sent shivers down the spine of the biotechnology industry when it overturned a district court decision confirming the validity of two patents that claim antibodies for lowering cholesterol.
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again took up the issue of liability for divided infringement, re-affirming its prior precedent and clarifying the requirements for holding an alleged infringer directly liable for a third party’s actions.
For some savvy patent owners, enforcing patent rights through European Union (EU) courts has been a valuable tool in their efforts to extract value from their patent portfolios, whether those strategies focus on market exclusivity or monetization.
Michael Garvin, a partner in the Vorys Cleveland office and a member of the litigation group, authored an article for the Canadian Federated Press publication Intellectual Property. The article was titled “How "Inter Partes Review" Will Reshape Patent Litigation Advice.”