Skip to main content

Intellectual Property

Viewpoints

Filter by:

PTAB Designates Decision Concerning One-Year Statutory Bars As Precedential

January 21, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Nick Armington

Last week, the PTAB designated two recent post-grant proceeding decisions as “precedential,” marking only the second and third time it has designated one of its opinions as binding on all PTAB judges.
Read more

Year in Review: The Most Popular Blog Posts of 2015

January 21, 2016 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

As 2016 begins and IP strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2015.  According to the many readers of Global IP Matters, hot topics included navigating the waters of U.S. patent prosecution, analyzing Federal Circuit appeals from the International Trade Commission, and handling Japanese patent oppositions.
Read more
In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, a 2-1 panel split of the Federal Circuit held that neither the American Invents Act (“AIA”) nor the Constitution precludes the same panel of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) from both deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) of a challenged U.S. Patent and making the final patentability determination in that IPR.
Read more

Federal Circuit Hears Argument on Personal Jurisdiction in Two Hatch-Waxman Appeals

January 12, 2016 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Joe Rutkowski

On Monday, January 4, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two appeals that may determine what effect the Supreme Court’s Daimler AG v. Bauman decision will have on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in Hatch-Waxman litigation.
Read more
On December 17, 2015, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) ruled that, in light of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice”), a plaintiff’s position on the validity of the patent-in-suit under § 101 was “objectively unreasonable” and that the harm to the defendants was compounded by the plaintiff  litigating in “an unreasonable manner[,]” meriting an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc.et al., C.A. Nos. 2:15-cv-541 and 2:15-cv-585 (Dec. 17, 2015).
Read more

Reminder - Biosimilars Webinars: A Five-Part Legal and Regulatory Issues Series

January 6, 2016 | Blog | By Terri Shieh-Newton, Joanne Hawana

Join us for the first webinar in our five-part Biologics/Biosimilars series, “Legal and Regulatory Overview” tomorrow, January 7, 2016 at 3:00 PM ET, featuring Terri Shieh-Newton and Joanne Hawana!
Read more
2015 was a busy year for post-grant review appeals at the Federal Circuit and produced notable opinions in the areas of claim construction, IPR procedural issues, and the constitutionality of IPRs in general. In 2015, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s claim construction in an IPR for the first time, and found that IPRs do not violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
Read more
George Bailey stands on a bridge begging for another chance at life. Upon being granted a second chance, he joyously runs home to embrace his family. As the community of Bedford Falls rallies around him and raises funds to save the endangered Building and Loan and George Bailey personally from an unjustified failure, someone proclaims a toast to George Bailey, “the richest man in town.”
Read more
On Monday, in the latest episode of the smartphone wars, Samsung filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Samsung is appealing a Federal Circuit decision that upheld a $399 million judgment against Samsung for infringing three of Apple’s design patents.
Read more

Biosimilars Webinars: A Five-Part Legal and Regulatory Issues Series

December 15, 2015 | Blog | By Terri Shieh-Newton, Joanne Hawana

Mintz Levin is running a series of webinars to educate our clients and friends on developments in the biosimilars space.  A cross-practice team of professionals from the IP, Health and Litigation sections are collaborating to present on Patent Prosecution, Health Regulatory, FDA, Patent Litigation, Transactional and Products Liability issues.
Read more
A recent U.S. District Court decision has clarified a potential danger when filing terminal disclaimers that contain overly-broad language. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Hagenbuch v. Sonrai Systems interpreted the terminal disclaimer language “I hereby disclaim the terminal part of any patent granted on the above-identified application or any continuation of it” as applying to any continuation application claiming priority from the application in which this terminal disclaimer was filed.
Read more

Tips for Responding to New Grounds of Rejection in an Examiner’s Answer

December 10, 2015 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Inna Dahlin

Filing an appeal brief with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can be an effective way to advance prosecution and secure allowable claims. After an appellant’s filing of a PTAB appeal brief, an examiner may respond with an examiner’s answer. 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37, 41.39.
Read more

Federal Circuit Deems IPR Constitutional: The Patent Office Can Correct Its Own Mistakes

December 3, 2015 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Michael Renaud, Ping Hu

Yesterday the Federal Circuit ruled in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company that vesting the Patent Office with power to take back previously-conferred patent rights through inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.
Read more

Mintz Convinces The Federal Circuit To Completely Reverse And Remand An Adverse IPR Final Written Decision For The First Time

November 30, 2015 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, William Meunier, Michael Newman, Nick Armington

Mintz has won extraordinary relief for its client, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., convincing the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an IPR final written decision adverse to a patent owner for the first time.
Read more

Understanding the Current State of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Under § 101

November 19, 2015 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Michael Van Loy

In July the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued additional guidelines for determining Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as previously discussed at Global IP Matters. 
Read more

PTAB May Allow a Petitioner to Correct An Improper IPR Reply Brief

November 11, 2015 | Blog | By William Meunier, Nick Armington

Last week, the Federal Circuit explained that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err when it allowed a petitioner to revise its Inter Partes Review Reply brief after first cautioning the petitioner that the PTAB may reject the Reply in its entirety if it improperly raised new issues.
Read more
On November 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC, and struck a blow to both the ITC and the entertainment and software industries by overturning the ITC’s opinion and finding that “[t]he Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the ‘unambiguously expressed intent of Congress’” and stating that the ITC’s jurisdiction is limited to “material things.”
Read more

SCOTUS to Hear a Duo on Willful Patent Infringement

October 20, 2015 | Blog | By Andy Yu

On Monday, October 19, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear two patent infringement cases on the issue of willfulness. The first case is Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc. and the second one is Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
Read more
The Federal Circuit has again held that it lacks jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board in Inter Partes Reviews, continuing the Court’s apparent “hands off” approach to reviewing PTAB decisions in IPRs.
Read more

Apple v. Samsung Part IV: The Injunction May Not Be Dead

October 2, 2015 | Blog | By James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Michael Renaud

On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated the trial court’s denial of Apple’s post-trial motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung.
Read more

Explore Other Viewpoints: