Patent Licensing and Transactions

The patent world is at a moment of change. A tremendous amount of thought, financial investment, and political capital is being devoted to transforming patents into assets that are central to the economy, international trade, and national defense. The incentives for obtaining and aggressively monetizing patents are increasing. In contrast, defending a patent litigation is becoming more difficult and the stakes are higher. Companies that take steps now to navigate these changes may be rewarded with significant competitive advantages.

Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary JudgmentFederal Circuit Concludes That Two Organizations Lack Associational Standing to Challenge USPTO’s Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) when parallel litigation is already pending in federal district court or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Acting Director Stewart replaced those guidelines with new interim processes that rely on the Director to issue decisions on patent owners’ requests for discretionary denials.

Military-owned businesses often possess unique technological advantages derived from years of research, development, and practical application. One veteran-owned company’s journey — combined with a patent attorney’s experience preparing and filing patent applications — provides valuable insight into what veterans should do to safeguard their intellectual property.

Part One of a Two-Part ArticleThis two-part article discusses the various legal and evidentiary requirements for antedating and removing prior art that patent owners should consider when their pre-AIA patents are challenged based on a prior art publication or activity that is not otherwise subject to a statutory bar. It also addresses considerations for petitioners to consider when developing their initial and ongoing invalidity strategies. Part One leads off with a discussion of the evidentiary requirements for proving earlier invention, conception and diligence and actual reduction in practice.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi reshaped enablement analysis for broad genus patent claims. In the wake of Amgen, broad functional claims have been scrutinized rigorously for sufficient disclosure. This article summarizes key post-Amgen decisions, which illustrate how patent drafters and litigators must navigate the fine line between claim breadth and disclosure depth in the post-Amgen era.

Many patent applicants currently face difficulty in obtaining antibody claims because of written description and enablement rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The USPTO routinely rejects claims as too broad, arguing that such claims cover more antibodies than the specification discloses, or that undue experimentation would be needed to determine whether an antibody reads on the claims. These heightened disclosure requirements increase laboratory costs to generate sufficient data for a §112(a)-proof specification.

In the latest action part of a recent whirlwind of PTAB policy and procedural change around the use of so-called “discretionary denial” to refuse to a challenge to the validity of a granted patent, the Acting Director of the USPTO has issued a memorandum creating a new “bifurcated” pretrial procedure to be used for deciding whether or not to proceed with a trial in response to a petition for inter partes review or post grant review of a granted patent.