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
The landscape for discretionary denials at PTAB is evolving quickly; both patent challengers and owners must adapt their strategies to ensure they are not left behind by the USPTO’s new approach.
Most days, preparing and prosecuting patent applications follows a familiar rhythm. Talk with the inventors. Draft the application. Wait for the Patent Office. Argue a few times. Secure the patent. Repeat. But every so often, a case reminds us that our work can mean much more — especially when something has gone wrong, and someone needs an advocate to make it right.
In Ex parte Michalek, the PTAB evaluated an invention involving medical health technology and artificial intelligence. While this case involved medical health technology, the implicated issues inform patent strategies for AI enabled inventions across all industries.
Only a few district courts have addressed the failure to mark in recent years — but they’ve reached directly opposing conclusions. This article analyzes the conflicting authorities and their reasoning, and it provides guidance to litigants on best practices given the conflict between district courts.
In recent decisions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the inherent powers of district courts to investigate and address potential party misconduct in patent litigations, including suspected fraud and bad faith conduct. This article delves into these key cases that upheld district courts’ policing by standing orders or sanctions and underscore the importance of transparency and proper conduct in patent litigation.
This 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. Part One led off with a discussion of the legal requirements for antedating prior art by establishing an earlier invention via: 1) conception and diligent reduction to practice; and 2) actual reduction to practice. Part Two discusses the legal requirements for removing prior art that discloses an inventor’s own work and the evidentiary requirements for swearing behind prior art.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the usage of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in patent infringement cases. Specifically, the court considered whether a finding of invalidity of claims by the PTAB at an inter partes review could be used to estop a patent holder from asserting patent infringement of different claims of the same patent in district court litigation.
We’re counting down to the new year with a recap of the five most influential patent decisions from 2024. Spanning damages, design patents, infringement loopholes, issue preclusion, and prior art disqualification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had an active year issuing cases with a direct impact on innovation. With several of these decisions currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2025 is shaping up to bring even more change.
We’re counting down to the new year with a recap of the five most influential patent decisions from 2024. Spanning damages, design patents, infringement loopholes, issue preclusion, and prior art disqualification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had an active year issuing cases with a direct impact on innovation.
