Alexander P. Ott
Subscribe to Alexander P. Ott's PostsAlexander (Alex) P. Ott focuses his practice on litigating complex patent disputes and representing clients in a variety of high technology industries, including the semiconductor, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pharmaceutical and software industries. He is a registered patent attorney with significant experience in patent prosecution matters. Alex has represented clients in federal district courts, in Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission (ITC), in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the US Patent and Trademark Office, and before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Read Alexander (Alex) P. Ott's full bio.
A New Vision: Collateral Estoppel Doesn’t Extend to Related Claims
By Alexander P. Ott on Sep 19, 2024
Posted In Patents
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court order excluding expert validity testimony based on collateral estoppel stemming from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding of a related patent, finding that an unpatentability decision in an IPR does not collaterally estop a patentee from making validity arguments about related claims...
Continue Reading
Later-Filed, Earlier-Expiring Patent Not an ODP Reference
By Alexander P. Ott on Aug 29, 2024
Posted In Patents
Addressing invalidity due to obvious-type double patenting (ODP) based on later-filed-related patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s application of In re Cellect (Fed. Cir. 2023) and held that the later-filed, earlier-expiring continuation patents were not available as ODP references against the earlier-filed, later-expiring patent. Allergan USA, Inc....
Continue Reading
Section 337 Doesn’t Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be “Patentee”
By Alexander P. Ott on May 30, 2024
Posted In Patents
Addressing an initial determination by an administrative law judge (ALJ) granting summary determination and terminating a Section 337 investigation for lack of Article III standing, the US International Trade Commission reversed and held that Section 337 does not require claimants to have Article III standing. Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules...
Continue Reading
Stud-y Harder: Domestic Industry Must Be Established for Each Asserted Patent
By Alexander P. Ott on May 16, 2024
Posted In Patents
Addressing a final determination by the US International Trade Commission of no violation of § 337, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement because it relied on aggregated evidence of investments across different products protected by different patents....
Continue Reading
ITC Shines Light on DI: Complainant Can’t Aggregate Investments Across Patents, Prongs
By Alexander P. Ott on Apr 11, 2024
Posted In Patents
Addressing a determination by its chief administrative law judge (CALJ) finding a violation of § 337, the US International Trade Commission reversed and held that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry (DI) requirement by aggregating its investment across multiple asserted patents. Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps (II), Case No. 337-TA-1292...
Continue Reading
R&D Expenditures Need Only Relate to Subset of Domestic Industry Product
By Alexander P. Ott on Feb 1, 2024
Posted In Patents
Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337 based on importation of certain TV products, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the patent holder had established a domestic industry based on research and development (R&D) relating to only a subset of the domestic...
Continue Reading
Mootness Requires Covenant Not to Sue to Be Unconditional and Irrevocable
By Alexander P. Ott on Jun 29, 2023
Posted In Trade Secrets
Addressing a district court decision finding no trade secret misappropriation, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the alleged trade secret holder had failed to moot the case because its covenant not to sue was both conditional and revocable. Synopsys, Inc. v. Risk Based Security, Inc., Case No. 22-1812 (4th Cir....
Continue Reading
No Smoking Gun Here: Soliciting Input Sufficient to Satisfy Commission’s Statutory Obligation
By Alexander P. Ott on Apr 6, 2023
Posted In Patents
Addressing a decision by the US International Trade Commission finding a violation of Section 337, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the Commission on a slew of issues, including its determination that soliciting comments from a sister agency regarding the products at issue was sufficient consultation to satisfy the Commission’s...
Continue Reading
Present-Tense Claim Terms Not Sufficient to Require Actual Operation
By Alexander P. Ott on Sep 15, 2022
Posted In Patents
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (Commission) decision that found no violation of Section 337 due to noninfringement. The Court disagreed with the Commission that the use of present-tense claim terms required actual operation to be shown to prove infringement, but nevertheless affirmed the Commission’s finding...
Continue Reading
Threat of ITC Exclusion Order Is Too Speculative to Constitute Irreparable Harm
By Alexander P. Ott on Jul 21, 2022
Posted In Patents
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by a federal district court denying a defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin a parallel International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation against it. The Federal Circuit agreed that the defendant’s alleged irreparable harm (a “cloud” over its business) was too conclusory...
Continue Reading
