Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Post-Grant Proceedings
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Any patent litigant unwilling to acquiesce to an adverse judgment from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can appeal to the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S. Code § 141. But the right to appeal is not the same as the wisdom of filing an appeal, as illustrated by the decision of…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier today, the Federal Circuit vacated the final written decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review involving Appellant Snyders Heart Valve LLC and Appellee St. Jude Medical, LLC, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court's decision in Arthrex, Inc.…
-
By Joshua Rich — Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final written opinion in inter partes review. Thus, while the merits of the case will have…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern that has been evident in the past few years is that…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit had the occasion to address anew the requirements for standing to appeal an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding under Article III of the Constitution, in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. The appeal arose…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Today, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year after being served with a complaint alleging infringement, are barred from judicial review under 35…
-
By Joshua Rich — Less than two years ago, in Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2018), the Supreme Court held that a government entity — in that case, the U.S. Postal Service — is not a "person" under the America Invents Act, and therefore unable to avail itself of…
-
By Joshua Rich — It's often said that hard cases make bad law. And that is what had happened here: faced with an unreasonable number of potentially asserted claims in litigation, and a Plaintiff not required to identify which of those claims it would actually assert within the filing limit (one-year) between being served with…
-
The Naples Roundtable, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose primary mission is to explore ways to improve and strengthen the U.S. patent system, will on Monday, March 23rd file a Request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, to designate Ex parte Olson (Appeal 2017-006489), and Ex parte Fautz (Appeal 2019-000106) as precedential. Both were designated…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam Order in BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., denying a petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc filed by Appellant BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. Judge Newman dissented from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. The…
Patent Docs 