In Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) because the Board erred in not considering portions of Ericsson’s Reply regarding new claim constructions adopted by the Board after institution. —

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

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) recently held that Customedia Technologies, LLC (“Customedia”) could not moot the CBM proceeding with a post-institution disclaimer of the claims found to recite a financial activity element. Dish Network Corp. v. Customedia Techs., LLC, CBM2017-00023, Paper 48 at 23 (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2018).

A patent is

No matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant the advance, innovators in mathematical techniques, particularly in the finance field, may think twice about seeking patent protection in view of the Federal Circuit’s recent precedential Section 101 decision in SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018).

There, claim 1

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register[1], announcing its plans to change the claim construction standard used in America Invents Act (“AIA”) reviews to the standard applied in the federal district courts and International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceedings. Under

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important decisions relating to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, U.S., No. 16-712, 4/24/2018

In Oil States, the Supreme Court ruled

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