This case addresses how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) interacts with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP).Continue Reading In Re: Cellect, LLC No. 2022-1293 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023)
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc, No. 2022-1147 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023)
This case is an appellate review of the district court’s findings regarding patent obviousness and priority date. Continue Reading Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc, No. 2022-1147 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023)
Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1269, 2022-1270 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2023)
This case concerns determining the prior art status of certain references in an inter partes review. The Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) was correct in declining to consider the patent owner’s certain evidence not submitted in compliance with the Board’s rules and in making a determination regarding written description requirements.Continue Reading Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1269, 2022-1270 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2023)
2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023.Continue Reading 2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries
Early 2023 Update: Where Are Plaintiffs Filing Patent Cases Now?
As patent litigators are well-aware, the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware, the two most popular venues for patent litigation, each issued orders regulating litigation in their districts in 2022. So as of early 2023, what effect have those orders had on patent filings?Continue Reading Early 2023 Update: Where Are Plaintiffs Filing Patent Cases Now?
Recent Expansion of IPR Estoppel Scope Viewed As Victory for Patent Owners
UPDATE: On Feb. 22, 2022, the Federal Circuit issued an errata to the original decision clarifying that the IPR estoppel only applies to challenged claims. The corrected language reads, in relevant part, that “estoppel applies […] to all grounds not stated in the petition but which reasonably could have been asserted against the claims included in the petition.” This errata alleviated concerns that the ruling might be interpreted to extend IPR estoppel to unchallenged claims.
Continue Reading Recent Expansion of IPR Estoppel Scope Viewed As Victory for Patent Owners