Photo of Aydin H. Harston

Aydin Harston combines his love for science and technology with legal expertise to advocate for his clients in all matters necessary to grow, protect, and defend their businesses.  With a Ph.D. in biochemistry and numerous scientific and legal publications, Aydin seeks to produce creative and effective  approaches to achieve his clients' goals as efficiently as possible.

Faced with criticism from legislators and patent owners for perceived serial harassment by patent challengers, on May 7, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB” or “the Board”) designated two decisions as “precedential” that arguably expand its discretion to deny petitions in PTAB proceedings.

Previously, in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon

Between March 7 and April 5, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB” or “the Board”) designated a series of decisions as either “precedential” or “informative.”  As part of its revised standard operating procedures (SOP2), the PTAB may designate an otherwise routine decision as precedential—a binding authority in subsequent matters involving similar facts

On March 8, 2019, in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2018-1599 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2019) the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (the “Board” or “the PTAB”) cancellation of U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 (“the ’310 patent”) based on inherent obviousness in an inter partes review (“IPR”).   Another

On December 12, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in favor of Mylan in its inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. It found all claims of Sanofi’s Lantus formulation patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,476,652 and 7,713,930) unpatentable as obvious on numerous grounds, and held that despite over $2 billion in annual sales,

On Friday, July 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB’s”) decision that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “the Office”) has the authority to decide the validity of

Ignore PTAB Precedent At Your Peril

Given the popularity of AIA post-grant proceedings, many patent litigators have been newly drawn into proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  However, parties and attorneys involved in such proceedings should be aware that the PTAB has its own set of precedential decisions, and the PTAB is

Since the Federal Circuit’s October 5, 2017 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi[1] overruling the so-called “newly characterized antigen” test for written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, patent challengers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields have gained powerful tools for attacking antibody claims for lack of adequate written description.  More broadly, patent challengers are

On February 9, 2018, in vacating and remanding parts of an obviousness decision, the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) erred in parts of its analysis of motivation, teaching away, and commercial success in cancelling all claims of Polaris’ U.S. Pat. No. 8,596,405 (“the ’405 patent”) in

  • New Privilege Rule Protects Communications with Foreign Jurisdiction Patent Practitioners From Discovery in PTAB Proceedings.
  • No Reciprocity From Foreign Jurisdiction is Required.

Under a new rule set to take effect on December 7, 2017, communications between patent practitioners authorized to practice patent matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under 37 C.F.R.