Supreme Court Uproots Current PTAB Practice by Quashing Partial Decisions

By Trisha Farmer Lau and David G. Barker On April 24, 2018, in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must decide the validity of every patent claim challenged when it undertakes inter partes review under the America Invents Act (“AIA”).  In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of SAS Institute, Inc., a software developer that filed an inter partes review petition and argued that the PTAB’s final decision must address all challenged claims in the petition. Before this decision, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regulation, 37   Read More »

Posted in Inter Partes Review, IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Confirms Inter Partes Review Is Constitutional

By Jacob C. Jones and David G. Barker In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the United States Supreme Court held today, in a 7-2 decision, that the inter partes review process under the America Invents Act (AIA), 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq. (2011), does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As we noted previously, inter partes review is a popular administrative proceeding where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB; part of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) decides whether challenged patents are valid.  As of March   Read More »

Posted in Inter Partes Review, IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation, Post Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Federal Circuit Clarifies Venue Waiver After TC Heartland

By Peter R. Montecuollo and David G. Barker The Federal Circuit issued guidance yesterday for district courts deciding venue challenges after the Supreme Court’s May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC.  In In re Micron Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit granted Micron Technology, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that TC Heartland “changed the controlling law” by making available a venue defense that was not “available” to patent infringement defendants prior to the Supreme Court’s decision. In the wake of TC Heartland, Micron Technology moved to dismiss or transfer President and Fellows   Read More »

Posted in IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation, Uncategorized | Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of AIA Inter Partes Review Proceedings

By Rachael Peters Pugel and Andrew F. Halaby The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings conducted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the America Invents Act.  The Court’s ruling in this matter, especially if it holds inter partes reviews to be unconstitutional, could massively destabilize the patent law system by casting into doubt an administrative regime that has diverted thousands of patent disputes from the federal court system, as well as the many hundreds of decisions invalidating patent claims so far yielded by that regime. Post-issuance proceedings   Read More »

Posted in Inter Partes Review, IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation, Post Grant Proceedings | Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Supreme Court Permits Biosimilar Drugs to Be Marketed Sooner

By Jacob C. Jones and David G. Barker On June 12, 2017, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a drug manufacturer may give a required 180-day notice of its intent to market a biosimilar drug before receiving FDA approval. This means that, in some circumstances, manufacturers can begin marketing biosimilars immediately after FDA approval. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) required Sandoz to give Amgen notice 180 days before selling its biologic Zarxio, an FDA approved biosimilar drug that relied on the prior approval of Amgen’s Neupogen.  Sandoz   Read More »

Posted in Biosimilars, IP and Technology Litigation, Patent Litigation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article: