Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D."

Transcription

1 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Patents Case Law in the U.S. Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D. 18 November,

2 1. Teva v. Sandoz Federal Circuit it must apply a clear error standard when reviewing district court claim construction, not de novo Patents at the U.S. Supreme Court 2. Commil v. Cisco Defendant s belief regarding patent validity is no defense to induced infringement 3. Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises Patentees still cannot charge royalties after a patent expires 2

3 Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Jan. 20, 2015) What level of deference should be given to a district court s review of claim construction? Existing standard was that Federal Circuit reviewed all claim construction issues de novo Standard originally set forth by en banc Federal Circuit panels in Markman v. Westview Instrs. (Fed. Cir. 1995) and Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs. (Fed. Cir. 1998) 3

4 Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. During Hatch-Waxman litigation over Teva s Copaxone drug, Sandoz challenged that a Copaxone patent was invalid as indefinite. After taking evidence from experts, the district court disagreed and found the claims definite. The Federal Circuit reviewed de novo and reversed. At the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, Justice Breyer wrote for the majority reversing the Federal Circuit. Fact finding by the District Court underlying claim construction (i.e., extrinsic evidence ) must be reviewed only for clear error. The district court is entitled to significant deference. Matters regarding intrinsic i i evidence (patent t and prosecution history) remain subject to de novo review since those are specialized to patent law. 4

5 Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (May 26, 2015) In the district court, Cisco was found to have directly infringed and induced infringement of Commil s wifi patent. The Federal Circuit vacated the part of the decision i regarding inducement, holding that t the district court should have considered Cisco s s good-faith belief that Commil s patent was invalid. Can this good faith belief form the basis of a defense to induced infringement charges? 5

6 Commil v. Cisco In a 6-2 decision, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority reversing the Federal Circuit standard. Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Breyer did not participate. A defendant s belief that a patent is invalid does not serve as a defense to charges of inducing infringement of the patent. In dissent, Justice Scalia says if knowledge of infringement is required, and one cannot infringe an invalid patent, it must logically follow that belief of invalidity should be a defense. Taking that defense away increases the in terrorem power of patent trolls. Court also reaffirms in dicta that a party is liable for inducement of infringement only if the defendant knew of the patent and that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. This is a high bar. 6

7 Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC (Jun. 22, 2015) Inventor Stephen Kimble was issued a patent in 1990 for a toy allowing pressurized foam to shoot from the wrists like Spiderman s web blaster. Kimble demonstrated the toy to Marvel, owner of rights to Spiderman. Marvel declined, but soon marketed its own similar toy. Kimble sued in The matter settled, with Marvel purchasing Kimble s patent in exchange for a lump sum payment plus 3% royalties on sales of the toy. The settlement agreement did not set any end date for the royalty payments. 7

8 Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment Marvel eventually found the 1964 Supreme Court decision Brulotte v. Thys Co., holding that a licensing agreement is invalid if it provides royalties beyond expiration of the patent. Kimble argued Brulotte should be overruled, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Kagan wrote for the Court, refusing to overturn Brulotte based on stare decisis and holding that Kimble s entitlement to royalty payments ended when his patent expired in In dissent, Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts) stated that Brulotte was an obvious mistake and the Court should decide cases on the merits. 8

9 1. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Review of first IPR final written decision 2. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. Methods utilizing natural products are unpatentable 3. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (partial en banc) Broadened application of means-plus-function function analysis 4. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (en banc) Divided infringement is the law 5. SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC (en banc) Patent laches remains a valid defense against infringement 9

10 In re Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, No (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cuozzo Speed Techs. owned a U.S. patent for a GPS-based speedometer display that continually indicated the speed limit with colorized numbers Garmin initiated iti t an IPR of fthe patent, and in the PTAB s first AIA final written decision, the patent claims were invalidated Cuozzo appealed on three grounds: institution of the IPR, the PTO s use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and denial of its motion to amend its claims during the IPR. 10

11 In re Cuozzo The Federal Circuit issued an initial opinion on 4 February, In a 2-1 split decision (Judges Dyk and Clevenger forming the majority), the Court held: The Court has no jurisdiction to review IPR institution decisions The PTO acted within its statutory authority in prescribing the use of the BRI standard, and that Congress would have to change that, not the Federal Circuit The Board was correct in denying Cuozzo s motion to amend. Judge Newman dissented, saying the majority decision was contrary to the purposes of the AIA. Cuozzo petitioned for en banc re-hearing. On July 8, 2015, the Court issued a revised opinion (no real change from original) and also denied en banc 6-5. Cuozzo filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court in October. 11

12 Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., Nos , (Fed. Cir. 2015) In 1996, researchers discovered that cell-free fetal DNA (cffdna) was present in pregnant mothers plasma and serum. Sequenom used these findings to create the MaterniT21 test, which detected and amplified the fraction of the cffdna inherited from the father. This permitted testing for gender and various prenatal conditions. Sequenom patented the technology, and sent cease and desist letters to other prenatal test makers. 12

13 Ariosa v. Sequenom Ariosa argued that under the test set forth in Prometheus v. Mayo,, Sequenom s claims were unpatentable under 101. In 2012, Sequenom undertook an interlocutory appeal in the case when a preliminary injunction was denied. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, but also told the district court to evaluate in light of Myriad, which had just issued. The district court granted Ariosa s motion for summary judgment, holding that Sequenom s patent was directed to the natural phenomenon of cffdna and that the claims did not add enough to be patent eligible under 101. Sequenom again appealed to the Federal Circuit. 13

14 Ariosa v. Sequenom In a unanimous decision, the Federal Circuit (Reyna, Linn, Wallach) affirmed the district court and held the claims unpatentable. Judge Reyna s opinion noted that [m]ethods are generally eligible subject matter but that under the Mayo framework, these claims were not. It was undisputed that the first step of the Mayo test was met that the claims were directed to a natural phenomenon (cffdna). The second step was not met there was no inventive concept transforming the natural phenomenon into something patentable. In a concurring opinion, Judge Linn stated the Court had no choice but to follow Mayo because Mayo was so overbroad. Sequenom has filed for en banc rehearing; a decision is pending. 14

15 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No (Fed. Cir. 2015) )(partial en banc) ) Williamson, a trustee for bankrupt ISP At Home Corp., asserted one of the company s patents directed to online collaboration software and virtual classrooms At issue: are the claims indefinite it due to means plus function claiming and dlack of corresponding structure 15

16 Williamson v. Citrix The Federal Circuit panel, comprised of Judges Moore, Reyna, and Linn, vacated and remanded the district court decision on issues not related to means-plus-function claiming. The Court sat en banc for a single subsection of the opinion, regarding application of the means-plus-function statutory section, 112(f) [formerly 112, 6th paragraph] Formerly, there was a strong presumption that claims not containing the word means were not subject to 112(f). The Williamson Court removed the strong portion of the presumption to combat the proliferation of functional claiming untethered to [ 112(f)]. Other required evidentiary showings were also eliminated. 16

17 Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nos , -1380, -1416, (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ) In a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Techs., Inc., a unanimous Supreme Court held there can be no liability for induced infringement where there is no single direct infringer. The Federal Circuit opted to take the case on remand sitting en banc. 17

18 Akamai v. Limelight The en banc Court held unanimously that direct infringement of a patented process is determined based on whether all steps of a claimed method are performed by or attributable to a single entity. Acts are attributable to an entity (1) where that entity directs or controls others performance, and (2) where the actors form a joint enterprise. All earlier precedent limiting direct infringement under 271(a) further is overruled. Limelight was thus found liable for direct infringement under this new definition. Though not expressly stated, it appears inducement can apply in divided infringement situations as long as all steps of a method are performed by or attributable to one directly-infringing infringing party. Also, a party can induce its own infringement. 18

19 SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, No (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ) After the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated laches as a defense for back damages in copyright infringement cases, the Federal Circuit sat en banc to determine whether laches should still be available as a defense in patent infringement cases. SCA sent a cease and desist letter to First Quality in First Quality responded d that t SCA s patent t was anticipated i t by another patent. SCA reexamined its patent in light of the prior art, and confirmed its patentability. In 2010, 3 years after reexam, SCA sued First Quality. First Quality asserted laches as a defense. 19

20 SCA Hygiene v. First Quality Baby Products SCA argued that in light of Petrella, laches was no longer available as a defense for infringement within the six-year limit of 35 U.S.C The en banc Court considered two questions: Can laches eliminate back-damages for infringement occurring within the six-year statutory period? Can laches limit ongoing relief, including permanent injunctive relief and ongoing royalties? The Court split 6-5 on the first question, with the majority finding that laches remains available as a defense in patent cases. The Court was a unanimous 11-0, on the second question, holding that laches remains available as a defense to ongoing damages. However, laches should only apply ppy in extraordinary circumstances. 20

21 Questions? Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. (0) ) Managing Partner of the firm s European office in London Experience in all aspects of patent law including prosecution, opinion preparation, due diligence investigations, interferences and litigation Practice focuses on client counseling, IP portfolio management and patent prosecution (appeals, reissue, reexam) in the chemical (organic, polymer), pharmaceutical, and biotechnological arts Frequent lecturer on various aspects of on patent law issues affecting the chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech industries 21

22 Disclaimer These materials have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. and European intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the authors, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (including Finnegan Europe LLP, and Fei Han Foreign Legal Affairs Law Firm) cannot be bound either philosophically ll or as representatives ti of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with these authors. While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed. 22

The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S.

The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S. Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. 2017 1 Agenda U.S. Supreme Court news 2017 U.S. Court

More information

Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions

Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions - Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014) doi: 10.1093/jiplp/jpu162 Author(s): Charles R.

More information

2015 IP Law Year In Review John B. Sganga, Jr.

2015 IP Law Year In Review John B. Sganga, Jr. 2015 IP Law Year In Review John B. Sganga, Jr. January 7, 2016 knobbe.com Patents: Belief of invalidity not a defense to inducement Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (May 26, 2015)

More information

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! 1 Quarterly Federal Circuit and Supreme

More information

Preface to 2016 Supplement

Preface to 2016 Supplement Preface to 2016 Supplement The 2016 Supplement of Patent Prosecution: Law, Practice, and Procedure addresses various significant changes in U.S. patent law resulting from recent decisions and statutory

More information

Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law

Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law Fordham IP Institute: 2C. U.S. Patent Law Dimitrios T. Drivas April 8, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court 35 U.S.C. 285, Exceptional Case Standard for Award Octane Fitness

More information

Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law

Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law Fordham IP Conference: Session 8B Dimitrios T. Drivas April 21, 2017 U.S. Supreme Court Willful Infringement (Enhanced Damages) Halo & Stryker Halo Elecs., Inc.

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

Significant Patent Topics in the Past Year

Significant Patent Topics in the Past Year Significant Patent Topics in the Past Year Presented by:!! Peter E. Heuser!!Brian G. Bodine!!Schwabe, Williamson!Lane Powell!! & Wyatt!!! September 2, 2015! PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER 2 Alice Corp. v. CLS

More information

Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y Tel: (212)

Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y Tel: (212) Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y. 10016 rkatz@evw.com Tel: (212) 561-3630 August 6, 2015 1 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1982) The patent laws

More information

Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?

Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review? October 16, 2015 Practice Groups: Patent Office Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Managemnet IP Litigation Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review? By Mark G. Knedeisen and Mark R. Leslie

More information

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! Quarterly Federal Circuit and Supreme

More information

Life Science Patent Cases High Court May Review: Part 1

Life Science Patent Cases High Court May Review: Part 1 Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Life Science Patent Cases High Court May

More information

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative 2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,

More information

2015 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW CASE LAW

2015 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW CASE LAW 2015 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW CASE LAW PRESENTED AT: THE D.C. BAR WASHINGTON, D.C. DECEMBER 15, 2015 BRADLEY C. WRIGHT BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD 1100 13 TH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202)-824-3160

More information

WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 22 May 2015 Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.

WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 22 May 2015 Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. Finnegan Europe LLP WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 22 May 2015 Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. 1 Overview of Hatch-Waxman Act Enacted as part of the Drug Price Competition and Patent

More information

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! Quarterly Federal Circuit and Supreme

More information

How Sequenom Lost Patent Protection For Fetal DNA Test

How Sequenom Lost Patent Protection For Fetal DNA Test Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Sequenom Lost Patent Protection For Fetal DNA

More information

SCA Hygiene (Aukerman Laches): Court Grants En Banc Review

SCA Hygiene (Aukerman Laches): Court Grants En Banc Review SCA Hygiene (Aukerman Laches): Court Grants En Banc Review Today SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 767 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(Hughes, J.), petitioner seeks en banc review

More information

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features: Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding

More information

Supreme Court s New Standard of Review for Claim Construction

Supreme Court s New Standard of Review for Claim Construction Supreme Court s New Standard of Review for Claim Construction C. Erik Hawes February 20, 2015 www.morganlewis.com Supreme Court continues to rein in CAFC Question: [W]hat standard the Court of Appeals

More information

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 7, ISSUE 24 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, (June 16, 2015) (en banc) (precedential) (11-1) Patent No. 6,155,840

More information

PATENT CASE LAW UPDATE

PATENT CASE LAW UPDATE PATENT CASE LAW UPDATE Intellectual Property Owners Association 40 th Annual Meeting September 9, 2012 Panel Members: Paul Berghoff, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP Prof. Dennis Crouch, University

More information

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Erika Arner Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA December 12, 2013 0 Post-Grant Proceedings New AIA proceedings

More information

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity

More information

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant

More information

Educational Briefing On Interference Proceedings Relating To CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing Technology Patents. August 28, 2018

Educational Briefing On Interference Proceedings Relating To CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing Technology Patents. August 28, 2018 Educational Briefing On Interference Proceedings Relating To CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing Technology Patents August 28, 2018 1 Today s Participants Cora Holt, Associate, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett

More information

Induced and Divided Infringement: Updates and Strategic Views

Induced and Divided Infringement: Updates and Strategic Views 14 th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute Induced and Divided Infringement: Updates and Strategic Views Steven C. Carlson Silicon Valley December 13, 2013 Alison M. Tucher San Francisco Induced Infringement

More information

Patent Portfolio Licensing

Patent Portfolio Licensing Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided

More information

Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments

Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Duke Patent Law Institute May 16, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared

More information

The New Post-AIA World

The New Post-AIA World Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent

More information

Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor

Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor State of the Patent System Dennis Crouch Professor University of Missouri History O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) The Telegraph Patent Case waves roll over time courts crash volcanos erupt next

More information

WHITE PAPER. Key Patent Law Decisions of 2014

WHITE PAPER. Key Patent Law Decisions of 2014 WHITE PAPER March 2015 Key Patent Law Decisions of 2014 The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in more and more patent law cases over the last several years and is on pace to hear twice as many

More information

Does Teva Matter? Edward R. Reines December 10, 2015

Does Teva Matter? Edward R. Reines December 10, 2015 Does Teva Matter? Edward R. Reines December 10, 2015 Pre-Teva: Federal Circuit En Banc Decisions Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) Because claim construction is a

More information

WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 2016 Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 2016 Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D. Finnegan Europe LLP WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 2016 Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D. 1 U.S. Judicial System U.S. Supreme Court Quasi- Judicial Federal Agencies Federal Circuit International

More information

The Edge M&G s Intellectual Property White Paper

The Edge M&G s Intellectual Property White Paper Supreme Court Restores Old Induced Patent Infringement Standard Requiring a Single Direct Infringer: The Court s Decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. In Limelight Networks,

More information

HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LAW

HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LAW HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LAW 2014 Jason Weil, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Barbara L. Mullin, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Jimmie Johnson, Sr. Patent Counsel, Johnson Matthey Alex Plache, Sr. IP

More information

Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape

Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape John Alemanni Matthew Holohan 2017 Kilpatrick Townsend Overview Substantial Changes Proposed Scope of Estoppel Remains Uncertain Appellate Issues and Cases Covered Business

More information

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L

More information

Lessons from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit s Recent Jurisprudence on Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review

Lessons from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit s Recent Jurisprudence on Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review Lessons from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit s Recent Jurisprudence on Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review Sharon A. Israel Partner sisrael@mayerbrown.com Vera A. Nackovic Partner vnackovic@mayerbrown.com

More information

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges. In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. 2014 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Cuozzo Speed Technologies ( Cuozzo ) owns U.S. Pa tent No. 6,778,074 (the 074 patent

More information

IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING

IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION NIKA ALDRICH OSB Intellectual Property Section August 3, 2016 Nika Aldrich Of Counsel IP Litigation 503-796-2494 Direct

More information

Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit

Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding

More information

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The University of Texas School of Law 20th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 5-6, 2015 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland

More information

Patent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus

Patent Resources Group Federal Circuit Law Course Syllabus I. Novelty and Loss of Right to a Patent II. III. IV. A. Anticipation 1. Court Review of PTO Decisions 2. Claim Construction 3. Anticipation Shown Through Inherency 4. Single Reference Rule Incorporation

More information

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., NATERA, INC., AND DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER, INC., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

More information

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise

More information

Trends in U.S. Patent Law: Key Decisions from the Federal Circuit

Trends in U.S. Patent Law: Key Decisions from the Federal Circuit The 4 th Annual US-China IP Conference: Best Practices for Innovation and Creativity Trends in U.S. Patent Law: Key Decisions from the Federal Circuit Julie Holloway Latham & Watkins LLP October 8, 2015

More information

Patent Law Developments 2015: A Quick Recapitulation

Patent Law Developments 2015: A Quick Recapitulation Patent Law Developments 2015: A Quick Recapitulation Donald S. Chisum Co-Founder, Chisum Patent Academy In terms of case law, legislation and other developments in patent law, calender year 2015 had no

More information

SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods.

SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods. The Supreme Court Eliminates Laches as Defense to Patent Infringement SUMMARY In a 7-1 decision issued yesterday in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, 1 the United States Supreme

More information

These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of

These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of May 14, 2013 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These

More information

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons

More information

Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts

Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts Injunctive Relief in U.S. Courts Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser Patent Litigation Remedies Session/Injunctions April 13, 2012 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Fordham IP Conference April 13, 2012 Footer / document

More information

Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review

Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review January 10, 2018 Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review Karl Renner Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair Dorothy Whelan Principal and Post-Grant Practice Co-Chair 1 Overview #FishWebinar

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY In Phillips v. AWH, the En Banc Federal Circuit Refocuses Claim Construction on a Patent s Intrinsic Evidence July 29, 2005 In perhaps its most anticipated decision since Markman

More information

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany

More information

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP 2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &

More information

Post Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services

Post Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services Post Grant Review Strategy Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services Cardinal Intellectual Property 1603 Orrington Avenue, 20th Floor Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 847.905.7122 Fax: 847.905.7123 Email: mail@cardinal-ip.com

More information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust,

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust, Case No. 2013-1130 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, CITRIX SYSTEMS,

More information

$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA

$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS John B. Scherling Antony M. Novom Sughrue Mion, PLLC July 30, 2013 1 $2 to $8 million 2 1 $1.8 billion $1.5 billion $1.2 billion

More information

The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings

The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina

More information

Detailed Table of Contents Mueller on Patent Law Vol. 2: Enforcement

Detailed Table of Contents Mueller on Patent Law Vol. 2: Enforcement Detailed Table of Contents Mueller on Patent Law Vol. 2: Enforcement (Last revised 15 January 2017; Incorporates 2017Annual Update) Chapter 13 JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE 13.01 U.S. District Courts Subject

More information

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT

More information

Recent U.S. Case Law and Developments (Patents) John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C.

Recent U.S. Case Law and Developments (Patents) John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C. Recent U.S. Case Law and Developments (Patents) John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson P.C. Serving the and Communities 1 Disclaimer The purpose of this presentation is to provide educational and informational

More information

How Eliminating Agency Deference Might Affect PTAB And ITC

How Eliminating Agency Deference Might Affect PTAB And ITC Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Eliminating Agency Deference Might Affect

More information

When is a ruling truly final?

When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could

More information

Patents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information

Patents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information Patents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information Susan Haberman Griffen Anna Tsang Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP May 20, 2005 Page 1 2005 DISCLAIMER These materials

More information

DISCLAIMER PETITIONS FILED SalishanPatent Law Conference

DISCLAIMER PETITIONS FILED SalishanPatent Law Conference For 2016 SalishanPatent Law Conference Enhancing The Possibilities Of Success For The Patent Owner In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons From PTAB Denials Of Institution by Deb Herzfeld Copyright Finnegan

More information

Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General s View on Safe Harbor of the Hatch-Waxman Act

Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General s View on Safe Harbor of the Hatch-Waxman Act Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General s View on Safe Harbor of the Hatch-Waxman Act Prepared By: The Intellectual Property Group On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court invited the Solicitor

More information

Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Asserting rights are no longer the province of pencil-pushing technology companies. Many businesses, big and small

More information

Brian D. Coggio Ron Vogel. Should A Good Faith Belief In Patent Invalidity Negate Induced Infringement? (The Trouble with Commil is DSU)

Brian D. Coggio Ron Vogel. Should A Good Faith Belief In Patent Invalidity Negate Induced Infringement? (The Trouble with Commil is DSU) Brian D. Coggio Ron Vogel Should A Good Faith Belief In Patent Invalidity Negate Induced Infringement? (The Trouble with Commil is DSU) In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, the Federal Circuit (2-1) held

More information

BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal

BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 89 PTCJ 823, 1/30/15. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)

More information

Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016

Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD 404.891.1400 mary.henninger@mcneillbaur.com REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-446 In the Supreme Court of the United States CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Petitioner, V. MICHELLE K. LEE, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK

More information

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly This Webcast Will Begin Shortly Register at www.acc.com/education/mym17 If you have any technical problems, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Recent Developments in Patent and Post-Grant

More information

The NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO

The NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO The NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Jung S. Hahm, David Goldberg, Christopher Lisiewski

More information

Top Ten Patent Cases October 23, 2014

Top Ten Patent Cases October 23, 2014 Rank Top Ten Patent Cases October 23, 2014 M = Sup. Ct. Merits Stage P = S. Ct. Petition Stage FC = Ct. of Appeals x Conf. Scheduled Case Name Issue Status 1 M Teva v. Sandoz Deference (Lighting Ballast)

More information

How Bilski Impacts Your Patent Prosecution and Litigation Strategies. MIP Inaugural China-International IP Forum June 30, 2010, Beijing

How Bilski Impacts Your Patent Prosecution and Litigation Strategies. MIP Inaugural China-International IP Forum June 30, 2010, Beijing How Bilski Impacts Your Patent Prosecution and Litigation Strategies MIP Inaugural China-International IP Forum June 30, 2010, Beijing Presenters Esther H. Lim Managing Partner, Shanghai Office Finnegan,

More information

Detailed Table of Contents * Mueller on Patent Law Vol. II: Enforcement

Detailed Table of Contents * Mueller on Patent Law Vol. II: Enforcement Detailed Table of Contents * Mueller on Patent Law Vol. II: Enforcement (Last revised Jan. 15, 2018; Incorporates 2018 Annual Update for Vol. II) Chapter 13 JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE 13.01 U.S. District

More information

Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same

Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same CLIENT ALERT June 30, 2016 Maia H. Harris harrism@pepperlaw.com Frank

More information

Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to

Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period 11-9-2017 to 12-13-2017 By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC This article presents a brief summary of relevant precedential points of law during

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, v. Cross-Petitioners, LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Cross-Respondent. On Cross-Petition

More information

CIRCUIT UPDATE. May 23, 2012

CIRCUIT UPDATE. May 23, 2012 2012 SUPREME COURT AND FEDERAL CIRCUIT UPDATE Significant Recent Patent Opinions May 23, 2012 Overview A. This year s most significant opinions run the gamut, but many focus on statutory subject matter

More information

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Respondent.

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Respondent. No. 15-446 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE K. LEE, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck What is included in Post-Grant Reform in the U.S.? Some current procedures are modified and some new ones

More information

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

More information

PATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.

PATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No. PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will

More information

Licensing & Management of IP Assets. Covenant Not to Sue

Licensing & Management of IP Assets. Covenant Not to Sue Licensing & Management of IP Assets Covenant Not to Sue AIPLA Spring Meeting May 2, 2013 Presented by D. Patrick O Reilley Emotional Background to Covenants Implication of validity Exhaustion Lemelson

More information

SHARPLY DIVIDED EN BANC FEDERAL CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS APPLICATION OF A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

SHARPLY DIVIDED EN BANC FEDERAL CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS APPLICATION OF A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION SHARPLY DIVIDED EN BANC FEDERAL CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS APPLICATION OF A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION On February 21, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lighting Ballast Control, LLC

More information

March 28, Re: Supplemental Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Dear Director Lee:

March 28, Re: Supplemental Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Dear Director Lee: March 28, 2017 The Honorable Michelle K. Lee Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

More information

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created

More information

The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape

The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016

More information

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., APP PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, PLIVA HRVATSKA D.O.O., TEVA

More information

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch   October 11-12, 2011 America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor

More information

Patent Cases to Watch in 2016

Patent Cases to Watch in 2016 Patent Cases to Watch in 2016 PATENT CASES TO WATCH IN 2016 Recent changes in the patent law landscape have left patent holders and patent practitioners uncertain about issues that have a major impact

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-76 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- J. CARL COOPER,

More information

Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings

Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings March 28, 2017 Attorney Advertising Overview Trends for TC1600/Orange Book Patents Legal Developments Scope of Estoppel Joinder Motions

More information

No CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

No CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Supreme Cou,,1., U.S FILED NOV - 9 2015 No. 15-446 OFFICE OF THE CLERK CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, V. Petitioner, MICHELLE K. LEE, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR,

More information

Top Ten Patent Cases * April 30, 2014

Top Ten Patent Cases * April 30, 2014 Top Ten Patent Cases * April 30, 2014 M = S. Ct. Merits Stage P = S. Ct. Petition Stage FC = Federal Cir. x x Conference Scheduled Rank Case Name Issue Status 1 M Nautilus v. Biosig 112(b) Indefiniteness

More information