Imagine That IP Law Blog

When a party wishes to challenge the validity of another's patent, the party may chose to file a Petition Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). If the Petition fails to provide sufficient evidence to  to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, the PTAB will deny institution of the IPR.

For example, the Petition is required to include “[a] full statement of the reasons for relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including ... Read More ›

In the case of In re Cellect, the Federal Circuit upheld a United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decision that the patentee’s (Cellect’s) patents were unpatentable due to Obviousness-type Double Patenting (ODP). In reaching its decision, the Court ruled that Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Patent Term Extensions (PTE) should be treated differently when considering ODP.

In particular, the Court held that when different patent family members have different expiration dates based on PTA, the patent family members that expire on an earlier date can be relied upon ... Read More ›

“Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) rules state the Petitioner must “seek leave to file a reply” to a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (POPR) and “ [a]ny such request must make a ... Read More ›

The Federal Circuit issued a decision in In re Cellect on August 28, 2023 which may have far-reaching consequences during the assertion of one or more patents that are related members in a patent family, and that include claims that may be subject to an argument for invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). The Federal Circuit found that when two or more related family member patents in a patent family cover similar enough or overlapping inventions, ODP can be applied to invalidate one of the patents where the related family member patents expire at different times due to ... Read More ›

AI-generated images have taken the internet by storm. From (occasionally terrifying) “deep fakes” to whimsical images of King Charles breakdancing, AI-generated images have entered the mainstream.

On August 18^th, in the case Thaler v. Perlmutter et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01564 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), Judge Howell of the DC Circuit held that artificial intelligence cannot be an author under U.S. Copyright Law.

The copyright application before the Court claimed that a particular artificial intelligence (“AI”) system was the “author” and ... Read More ›

In an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the burden of proof and persuasion lies with the petitioner to demonstrate "unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence" under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “[T]hat burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, to invalidate a claim in an IPR, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that a claim in a patent is unpatentable.

To prove that a claim is unpatentable for violating “obviousness” requirements under 35 U.S.C §103, a ... Read More ›

The Bayh-Dole Act, officially known as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, was enacted in 1980 as a United States federal law. Its purpose is to establish a framework for the ownership and commercialization of intellectual property that arises from research and development (R&D) activities funded by the federal government.

Prior to the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, the U.S. government retained ownership of inventions resulting from federally funded research. However, this approach often led to the underutilization of these inventions, as the government lacked the ... Read More ›

Applicant-admitted prior art (“AAPA”) refers to a situation in patent applications where the person or entity applying for a patent acknowledges the existence of prior art relevant to their invention. When an applicant admits prior art, they are essentially acknowledging that the invention they are seeking to patent is not entirely new or novel. By admitting the existence of prior art, the Applicant is disclosing that similar or related technologies or inventions already exist, which could potentially impact the patentability of their own invention.

In the United States ... Read More ›

In Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2021-1981, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11311 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. RE47,614 (“the ‘614 patent”) unpatentable in Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2019-01657. The Petitioner (Mylan) argued that the combination of three prior art references rendered the claims obvious. In attempting to sustain its burden of establishing obviousness, Mylan appears to have attempted to apply the ... Read More ›

In Amgen v. Sanofi (Case No. No. 21–757), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ holdings that Amgen’s patent claims to antibodies were invalid. These claims were claims 19 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,829,165 and claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,859,741.

The ‘traditional manner’ of antibody claim was to recite the epitope to which the antibody binds plus the effect of the binding. This has been the format since at least In Re Wands (858 F.2d 731) in 1988. For example, see claims 1 and 7 of Amgen’s U.S. Patent 8,859,741:

1. An isolated monoclonal antibody that binds to ... Read More ›