We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 193

Tradeshow catalog qualifies as prior art
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • September 17 2018

In a previous blog post, we reported that in a Final Written Decision on October 26, 2016, the PTAB concluded that GoPro, Inc. (GoPro) failed to


No mandamus relief from shenanigan-less non-institution decision
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • September 10 2018

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Federal Circuit will not review Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions refusing to institute inter partes


Illuminating the Section 315(b) Time-Bar on IPR Petitions
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2018

In Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu, Nos. 17-1629, 17-1631, 17-1633 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s determination


Voluntary Dismissal Cannot Un-ring the Bell of 315(b)’s Time Bar
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • September 6 2018

In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. the en banc Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether a petition was time barred under


Go (En)Fish: BSG Tech’s “Minimal Narrowing” of Technology Not Enough to Make Claims Patent Eligible under 101
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2018

In BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., No. 2017-1980 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision finding all


Federal Circuit upholds Board’s use of control standard of privity to assess time bar
  • Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP
  • USA
  • August 20 2018

It is undisputed that institution of an inter partes review (IPR) is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b) if the petition is “filed more than 1 year


Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics - July 15, 2018
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 20 2018

Through July 15, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided 393 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 296


CAFC Holds USPTO Cannot Recover Attorneys’ Fees Under 35 USC 145 in Nantkwest v. Iancu
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 15 2018

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the CAFC, sitting en banc (excl. Chen, C.J.), affirmed the district court’s


Claiming an Economic Practice or a Mathematical Technique after SAP America, Inc., v. Investpic, LLC.
  • Workman Nydegger
  • USA
  • July 25 2018

Alice rejections (rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101) often relate to claims that are rejected as being directed to abstract ideas, without


U.S. Supreme Court broadens the territorial scope of patent damages
  • Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
  • USA
  • July 20 2018

In a 7-2 decision, its first to address the extraterritorial scope of patent damages since passage of the modern Patent Act, the U.S. Supreme Court