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 4,485

PTAB Denies Another IPR Petition Relating to Adalimumab
  • Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC
  • USA
  • June 14 2018

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied Sandoz’s petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-30 of AbbVie’s patent, U.S


Non-Patent Literature at the PTAB
  • Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC
  • USA
  • June 12 2018

Typically, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) is thought to disfavor non-patent literaturethat is, “printed publications” under 35 U.S.C


PTAB Provides Guidance on Motion to Amend Practice
  • Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
  • USA
  • June 12 2018

In Western Digital Corp v. SPEX Tech, the PTAB provides guidance on motion to amend practice in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent


Unsupported Expert Opinion Will Not Overcome a Prior Art Reference in IPR
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • June 11 2018

Ericsson appealed an IPR decision by the PTAB finding claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,952,408 (“the ’408 patent”) to be not anticipated and


Chief Judge Guidance: SAS Impact, Motions to Amend, and Claim Construction
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • June 8 2018

On June 5, 2018, Chief Judge David Ruschke and Vice Chief Judge Tim Fink of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) participated in a webinar


Species of Obviousness
  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • Canada
  • June 7 2018

Ironically, it is not so obvious as to how to apply the Canadian law of obviousness. For example, the UK’s WindsurfingPozzoli analytical approach


Uncertainty of IPR Estoppel in District Courts Continues
  • Baker Botts LLP
  • USA
  • June 5 2018

One of the early-recognized pitfalls of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings was the statutory estoppel of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2) barring petitioners


File It: Motion for Remand in View of SAS Institute
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • June 5 2018

We have previously discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which held that the PTAB cannot


Die Datenschutz-Grundverordnung - Ein Hemmnis für die Digitalisierung?
  • Taylor Wessing
  • Germany
  • June 4 2018

Die EU-Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) gilt ab dem 25. Mai 2018. Für Unternehmen steigen die Anforderungen an den Datenschutz immens - und bei


Can Challengers Now Attack Subject Matter Eligibility in Inter Partes Reviews?
  • Banner & Witcoff Ltd
  • USA
  • May 31 2018

The statute authorizing inter partes reviews (IPR) explicitly limits the grounds for cancellation to Sections 102 and 103 of the patent statute: