Analysis of patent litigation, PTAB practice, prosecution and pharma IP, written on the data behind LexDana.
Written by Peter Law and Jason J. Jardine Edited by Loni Morrow and Catherine Holland Buscemi, LLC (“Buscemi”) filed for a design patent on June 2, 2016. In March 2017, while the patent application was pending, Buscemi alleges that it became…
Written by Peter E. Heuser, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Impression Products v. Lexmark will force patentees to get what ‎they can in their initial sale or licensing of patented products in both the U.S. and…
On May 30, 2017, in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court held that patent exhaustion applies to sales made anywhere in the world, thereby extinguishing the patent owner’s rights under patent law once the…
There were many new green patent complaints filed in March and April in the areas of advanced batteries, fuel efficiency, green cleaning solvents, LEDs, smart grid, and solar power. Advanced Batteries Somaltus LLC v. Johnson Outdoors, Inc. On March 14,…
Monday, in a unanimous opinion (Goresuch did not participate), the Supreme Court interpreted the patent venue statute (28 USC s. 1400(b)) to require that the phrase “where the defendant resides” be limited to the defendant’s state of…
Written by Nathanael Luman, Ph.D. and Kerry S. Taylor, Ph.D. The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether the PTAB is required to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every claim challenged…
Written by Peter Law and Kerry S. Taylor, Ph.D. On May 23, 2017, the PTAB granted the University of Maryland’s (UM) motion to terminate inter partes review based on UM’s sovereign immunity in Neochord, Inc. v. Univ. of Maryland, Baltimore and…
Written by Peter Heuser, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. The big news this week (and it is particularly big news in Tyler and Marshall, Texas) is that the ‎Supreme Court rules that a defendant “resides” for purposes of the patent venue…
Written by Nathanael Luman, Ph.D. and Scott Raevsky The PTAB denied Apple’s motion to withdraw both its IPR petition and concurrent motion for joinder to prevent Apple from circumventing potential estoppel ramifications in Apple Inc. v. Papst…
Recent Decision out of EDTX First to Get PTAB Estoppel Provision Correct IPR estoppel is established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which provides that “the petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent . . . that results in a final…
"All or Nothing" PTAB Institution Practice Coming Soon? Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in SAS Institute Inc., v. ComplemenSoft LLC. As previously explained , SAS argues that partial PTAB trial institutions are inconsistent with the…
Written by Casey D. Donahoe, Ph.D. and Benjamin Anger The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to steel making methods were obvious in Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, No.…
