Effective Filing Date of Provisional and Non-Provisional Application Prior Art

Author: Dorothy Jones, Ph.D.
August 21, 2026

... Read more

Final Written Decision on IPR filed Against Patent 11,874,910 B2 "Facial Recognition Authentication System Including Path Parameters" Denied for Improper Motivation to Combine Prior Art

Author: Diane Jones
June 30, 2026

On June 4, 2026, the PTAB issued a final written decision in a petition (IPR2025-00109, Jumio Corporation) filed against Patent 11,874,910 B2 to FaceTec, Inc., determining, in a majority opinion, that no challenged claims of claims 1-24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).<... Read more

Patent Owner Gets Green Light for Dependent Claims Under the Recent Director Review Process

Author: Robert W. Downs
June 24, 2026

The current Director of the USPTO, John Squires, has been instrumental in making changes to how the USPTO does business, literally. Right off the bat, Director Squires clarified the USPTO policies regarding Section 101 patentability in the case of advanced technologies, including blockchain, artificial intelligence and medical diagnosis. In an "Open Letter" titled "Bringing the USPTO Back to the Future," Director Squires announced that effective October 20, 2025, he will personally determine whether to institute trial proceedings rather than delegating this function to PTAB panels. This announcement is intended to restore proper respect for the Patent Office’s examination process and the presumption of validity that issued patents deserve. It is expected that these changes will favor patent owners.<... Read more

Deposit of Biological Material is Not Always Necessary to Satisfy the Enablement Requirement If the Biological Material is Known and Readily Available at the Time the Patent is Granted

Author: Diane Jones
February 12, 2026

On November 18, 2025, an inter-partes review IPR2024-01014 between Inari Agriculture, Inc., Petitioner and Corteva Agriscience LLC, Patent Owner, received a Final Written Decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board asserting that no challenged claims were unpatentable of U.S. Patent 8,901,378 B2.<... Read more

The Limits of Inherency in Product-by-Process Claims, and When is an Isolated Cell Actually a Population?

Author: Lucas Koziol, Ph.D.
April 7, 2025

Restem, LLC, v. Jadi Cell, LLC  (see the Resources link below for a copy of the Opinion)<... Read more

Prosecution Disclaimer in a Member of a Patent Family Over the Prosecution History of Another Member of the Family

Author: Richard D. Kelly
March 27, 2025

In Maquet Cardiovascular LLC. v. Abiomed Inc., Appeal No. 2023-2045, March 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit provided guidance as to when the prosecution history of one member of a patent family may act as an estoppel in the claim construction of another member of the family. At issue was the construction of claims 1 and 24 of U.S.P. 10,238,783 (‘783) in view of the prosecution histories of its parent application, U.S.P. 9,789,238 (‘238) and great-great-grandparent application U.S.P. 8,888,728 (‘728).  The ‘783 patent was directed to blood pumps which could be placed in a patient’s vascular system without using a supplemental guide means.  The guide was integrated into the apparatus.<... Read more

PTAB Invalidates Regeneron Claims on Method of Treatment

Author: Cristina Lai
July 5, 2024

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision on IPR2023-00442 determining that claims 1, 3-11, 13, 14, 16-24, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,681 (“the ‘681 patent”) were unpatentable. The ‘681 patent is owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and was challenged in an IPR by Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.  The ‘681 patent claims priority to a number of patents that were invalidated in previous IPR proceedings.<... Read more

IOEngine v. Ingenico: Printed Matter Doctrine and Forfeiture of Claim Construction

Author: Xiaohua (Joyce) Guo, Ph.D.
May 30, 2024

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed and partially affirmed the Final Written Decisions made by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) during a series of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.<... Read more

Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Finding of Patentability in Medtronic v. Teleflex Life Sciences

April 1, 2024

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Ltd. the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that U.S. Patent No. 8,142,413 (“the ’413 patent”), owned by Teleflex, was not shown to be unpatentable over the asserted prior art. This post will focus on how the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s claim interpretation to find ’413 patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14 non-obvious.<... Read more

Federal Circuit Remands to PTAB to Further Consider Pfizer's Motion to Amend Claims

Author: Long Phan
March 13, 2024

In a recent ruling regarding Pfizer's pneumococcal vaccine patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,492,559), the Federal Circuit upheld most of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to invalidate portions of Pfizer's ‘559 patent as obvious. The PTAB’s invalidation of the ‘559 patent occurred over five IPRs by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi Pasteur Inc. and SK Chemicals Co.<... Read more