Intellectual Property
Viewpoints
Filter by:
Ex parte WILHELM HEINE: PTAB Rejects Examiner’s Unreasonable Claim Construction
October 7, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew D. Skale
During patent prosecution, Examiners often liberally apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in rejecting claims. When responding to these rejections, it is important to remember that there are limits to an Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation.
Read more
Patenting Considerations for Artificial Intelligence in Biotech and Synthetic Biology - Part 1
September 30, 2019 | Blog | By Terri Shieh-Newton, Marguerite McConihe
Artificial Intelligence (AI) inventions have aided development in nearly every industry, but perhaps none more so than synthetic biology. For synthetic biology researchers, AI has developed into a vital tool to create cutting edge applications.
Read more
Prior Civil Action Bars IPR - A precedential decision
September 24, 2019 | Blog | By Ken Jenkins
On August 29, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential its January 31, 2019 decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc. In Cisco, the PTAB held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) bars institution of IPR if the petitioner filed an earlier civil action, even if such action was voluntarily dismissed by the petitioner without prejudice.
Read more
ITC suggests 5% Threshold for Domestic Industry Assessment; order may impact tech companies
September 23, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Andrew DeVoogd, Matthew Karambelas, Nana Liu
Recently, Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) Bullock of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”), in Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors, Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Order No. 77, suggested that “significant” or “substantial” domestic industry investments must amount to greater than 5% of domestic industry product sales in the United States.
Read more
Recap of Federal Register Notice on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Patent Issues
September 17, 2019 | Blog | By Marc Morley, Michael Renaud
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming important across a diverse spectrum of technologies and businesses. As AI grows in importance in business and technology, so too grows the number of patent applications and the potential for uncertainty. Therefore, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must continue to ensure the appropriate balance in the administration of our IP system.
Read more
International Trade Commission ALJ Holds that Relying on Pre-Suit Testing Waives Privilege Protection
September 10, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd
A recent order from International Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge Elliott provides helpful guidance regarding a common ITC discovery dispute: whether a party may withhold from discovery as work product pre-suit test results and methods where those results and methods were relied upon in forming the pleaded allegations of the complaint or to support a party’s contentions.
Read more
ITC Domestic Industry Products Do Not Need to Be Commercially Available
September 3, 2019 | Blog
In a recent initial determination, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Cheney of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) held that domestic industry products do not need to be commercially available to satisfy section 337’s domestic industry requirement.
Read more
Patent Prosecution and FDA Compliance Expenses May Help Satisfy the ITC’s Domestic Industry Requirement
September 3, 2019 | Blog
In a recent initial determination, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Cheney of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) provided useful guidance for patentees by reaffirming that there is no categorical rule that patent prosecution expenses cannot be included in the domestic industry analysis at the ITC, and also finding that complainants may rely upon expenses relating to FDA compliance to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.
Read more
All Complaints Once Served—Even Defective Complaints that are Dismissed—Trigger the IPR Time Bar
August 27, 2019 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger
The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel, colloquially referred to as “the POP,” ruled that the one-year window to file inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions begins once a complaint alleging infringement is served—even if the complaint is defective.
Read more
Recent ITC Ruling Highlights Ability of Patentees to Rely on Accused Infringers’ Investments to Satisfy Domestic Industry Requirement and Potential Pitfall of Affirmative Defense
August 27, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nana Liu
On July 1, 2019, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Elliot of the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) issued a ruling indicating that it may be possible for complainants to rely on respondents’ products to satisfy the ITC’s domestic industry requirement in certain circumstances.
Read more
Recent Decision Holds That Litigation Funding Does Not Harm Standing and Provides Tips for Negotiating Funding Agreements
August 26, 2019 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nana Liu
The August 13, 2019 decision from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi Media LLC, Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-02340, deals a blow to a common attack on litigation funding. The decision protects the ability of plaintiffs who lack resources to enforce their patent rights by affirming that seeking funding does not necessarily harm standing.
Read more
Alexa: What is venue?
August 23, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd, Serge Subach
A recent decision from the Northern District of New York provides a detailed outline for analyzing venue in patent infringement cases, and may provide facts that companies with equipment installed in other districts should understand.
Read more
ANDA Applicant Dismissed for Lack of Venue Under § 1400(b) as District of New Jersey Departs from its own and the District of Delaware’s Prior Rulings
August 21, 2019 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski
On August 13, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-cv-14305, held that venue was not proper in New Jersey over Mylan in a patent infringement action arising from Mylan’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug, Jublia®.
Read more
Federal Circuit Cautions Against Rigid Approach to Prosecution History Estoppel in Fourth Appeal from ALIMTA® Litigations
August 19, 2019 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Nana Liu
On August 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2018-2126, 2127, 2128, reversed in-part and affirmed in-part a district court’s determination of infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of literal infringement but ultimately affirmed judgments of infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents.
Read more
PTAB Confirms (Again) that the AIA’s “Enhanced Estoppel” Provision Applies to Concurrent IPR Proceedings
August 12, 2019 | Blog | By Andrew DeVoogd
In a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued last week, the Board confirmed that the “enhanced estoppel” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) applies to co-pending inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings when a final written decision issues in a first IPR. The panel flatly rejected a Petitioner’s attempt to apply the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to those circumstances.
Read more
Give and Take: IPR of Pre-AIA Patent is NOT an Unconstitutional Taking
August 9, 2019 | Blog | By Marc Morley
On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that retroactive application of IPR (inter partes review) proceedings to pre-AIA (America Invents Act) patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment (Celgene Corp. v. Peter; appeals from IPR2015-01096, IPR2015-01102, and IPR2015-01103).
Read more
Effect of Prosecution History Estoppel on Infringement Claim under Doctrine of Equivalents
August 9, 2019 | Blog | By Marc Morley
The Federal Circuit in Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc. affirmed a district court decision that once certain subject matter is clearly and unmistakably surrendered during prosecution, the patentee is barred from asserting an infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents.
Read more
Representations Made by a Patentee during Foreign Prosecution May Be Used in Claim Construction for U.S. Patents
July 22, 2019 | Blog | By Marc Morley, Melissa Brayman
Claim construction, the process by which a court interprets the scope and meaning of a patent’s claims, is a crucial part of patent litigation. In fact, claim construction can make or break a patentee’s case for infringement and/or validity.
Read more
PTAB Clears Up Uncertainty Regarding the Rules on Conferring with a Witness During Inter Partes Review Depositions
July 15, 2019 | Blog | By Daniel Weinger
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a decision from 2014, which found that counsel can confer with a deponent at the conclusion of cross examination and prior to redirect. Through its designation of Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. July 21, 2014) as precedential, the PTAB has made clear that although counsel may not confer with a witness during the cross-examination portion of a deposition, counsel may confer with a witness after cross-examination has concluded but before the redirect portion of the deposition commences.
Read more
Help from the PTAB in Applying USPTO § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
July 12, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
In July 2019 the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) newly designated four decisions as informative to highlight the PTAB’s general consensus on issues considered in these cases. All four cases involve the PTAB applying the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s January 2019 guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decisions focus on whether claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application so as to be subject matter eligible.
Read more
Viewpoint Editors
Brad M. Scheller
Member
Christina Sperry
Member
Explore Other Viewpoints:
- Antitrust
- Appellate
- Arbitration, Mediation & Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Artificial Intelligence
- Awards
- Bankruptcy & Restructuring
- California Land Use
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Construction
- Consumer Product Safety
- Cross-Border Asset Recovery
- Debt Financing
- Direct Investing (M&A)
- Diversity
- EB-5 Financing
- Education & Nonprofits
- Employment
- Energy & Sustainability
- Environmental Enforcement Defense
- Environmental Law
- FDA Regulatory
- Federal Circuit Appeals
- Financial Institution Litigation
- Government Law
- Growth Equity
- Health Care
- Health Care Compliance, Fraud and Abuse, & Regulatory Counseling
- Health Care Enforcement & Investigations
- Health Care Transactions
- Health Information Privacy & Security
- IP Due Diligence
- IPRs & Other Post Grant Proceedings
- Immigration
- Insolvency & Creditor Rights Litigation
- Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery
- Insurance & Financial Services
- Insurance Consulting & Risk Management
- Insurance and Reinsurance Problem-Solving & Dispute Resolution
- Intellectual Property
- Investment Funds
- Israel
- Licensing & Technology Transactions
- Life Sciences
- Litigation & Investigations
- M&A Litigation
- ML Strategies
- Medicare, Medicaid and Commercial Coverage & Reimbursement
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling
- Pharmacy Benefits and PBM Contracting
- Portfolio Companies
- Privacy & Cybersecurity
- Private Client
- Private Equity
- Pro Bono
- Products Liability & Complex Tort
- Projects & Infrastructure
- Public Finance
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate Transactions
- Real Estate, Construction & Infrastructure
- Retail & Consumer Products
- Securities & Capital Markets
- Securities Litigation
- Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPACs)
- Sports & Entertainment
- Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing
- Tax
- Technology
- Technology, Communications & Media
- Technology, Communications & Media Litigation
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark & Copyright
- Trademark Litigation
- Venture Capital & Emerging Companies
- White Collar Defense & Government Investigations
- Women's Health and Technology