Author:
Richard D. Kelly
October 1, 2026
The recent ARP (Appeal Review Panel) decision in ex Parte Baurin reversed a PTAB decision reversing the examiner’s final rejection of application 17/135,529 (‘529) on the grounds of obvious type double patenting (OTDP). The examiner’s OTDP rejection relied solely on the concept of harassment if the ownership of a patent issuing on ‘529 was different from for the reference patents. The examiner rejected the ‘529 application over five patents and one pending application (a patent thicket) on OTDP even though there was no extension of the monopoly period of the references relying on the M.P.E.P. and PTO guidance documents for the concept of harassment as the sole basis for the rejection. The PTAB rebutted these arguments in its decision denying the examiner’s request for reconsideration. The PTAB did not find any case law supporting the concept that the possibility of dual ownership alone was sufficient to support a double patent infringement rejection but did cite Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd, 753 F.3d 1208 at 214 (Fed. Cir. 2014) where the Court found that a later filed and earlier expiring patent made the earlier filed and later expiring patent invalid for double patenting:<... Read more
Author:
Dorothy Jones, Ph.D.
August 21, 2026
... Read more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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