IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Patent"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent"'s Posts

Some Post-Expiration Patent Royalty Payments May Be OK

by | Sep 5, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s finding that a contract impermissibly allowed for patent royalties after the patent expired because the post-termination royalty payments were allocated to non-US patents. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Atrium Med. Corp., Case No. 23-16020 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024) (Friedland, Mendoza, Desai, JJ.) (per curiam).

C.R. Bard held one US and one Canadian patent covering a type of vascular graft. In 2011, Bard and Atrium entered a licensing agreement to settle a patent dispute. Under the terms of the agreement, Atrium agreed to pay Bard a 15% royalty on covered US sales until 2019 (when the US patent expired) and a 15% royalty on covered Canadian sales until 2024 (when the Canadian patent expired). The contract also included a quarterly royalty minimum. Through 2019, as the contract contemplated, Atrium paid royalties on its US and Canadian sales. Because of a US Food and Drug Administration delay, Atrium had lower than expected sales and never exceeded the quarterly minimum royalty.

Atrium eventually refused to continue making royalty payments, which after 2019 covered only Canadian sales (likewise never exceeding the quarterly minimum). Bard sued for breach of contract in 2021. Atrium argued that the royalty provision was unenforceable under Brulotte v. Thys, a 1964 US Supreme Court decision holding that collecting royalties for patent use after a patent’s expiration constitutes patent misuse. The district court determined that the “clear and primary purpose” of the parties’ contractual minimum royalty was to compensate Bard for US sales of the patented product. The district court therefore agreed with Atrium. Bard appealed.

The Ninth Circuit undertook to determine whether the terms of the parties’ contract constituted patent misuse under Brulotte. The Ninth Circuit first explained that in Brulotte, the Supreme Court considered a contract between the owner of multiple patents related to picking hops and farmers who made seasonal license payments to use machines incorporating those patents. The Supreme Court found patent misuse because the license amount did not decrease as patents incorporated into the machines expired, which indicated that the farmers were paying to use expired patents.

Despite pushback, the Supreme Court refused to overturn Brulotte in 2015 when it decided Kimble v. Marvel. That case involved a patent holder’s license allowing Marvel to incorporate patented web-shooting technology into a Spiderman toy. In Kimble, the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the license agreement was invalid under Brulotte because it required Marvel to continue to pay a royalty fee after the patent expired. The Ninth Circuit noted, however, that an ongoing license after the expiration of a patent may be permissible if the license contemplates both patented and non-patented features, as long as the terms of the royalty adjust when the patent expires. For instance, a license covering both a patented invention and a trade secret may continue past the life of the patent, as long as the royalty rate diminishes after the patent expires. This reflects that the royalty is [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Later-Filed, Earlier-Expiring Patent Not an ODP Reference

by | Aug 29, 2024 |

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. v. MSN Labs Private Ltd., Case No. 24-1061 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2024) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna JJ.)

In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug application for a drug sold by Allergan to treat the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. In 2019, Sun Pharma filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of the drug. Allergan then sued Sun Pharma and MSN Labs for infringement of four patents related to the drug. One of the patents, which claims a compound of the drug, had been granted almost three years of patent term adjustment (PTA) and was followed by two more patents from continuation applications in the same patent family. The other three patents all claimed tablet forms of the drug. The claims of one of the patents recited that a glidant was optional while the claims of the other two patents did not require a glidant at all.

The US District Court for the District of Delaware held a three-day bench trial and concluded that the asserted claim of the compound patent was invalid under the ODP doctrine and that the claims of the three tablet patents were invalid for lack of written description. On the issue of ODP, the district court found Allergan’s “first-filed, first-issued” distinction “immaterial.” The district court stated that “[w]hen analyzing ODP, a court compares patent expiration dates, rather than filing or issuance dates.” Allergan appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed on both issues. The Court held that the claims of the later-filed, earlier-expiring continuation patents were not available as ODP references against the first patent because the purpose of the ODP doctrine is to prevent patentees from obtaining a second patent to effectively extend the life of the first patent. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court misread Cellect as binding it to solely consider expiration dates in the ODP analysis. The Court explained that Cellect only controls to the extent that it requires a court to consider the later-filed patent’s expiration date (i.e., the expiration date after the addition of PTA) in its ODP analysis, not the expiration date that it would have shared with the reference patents in the absence of a PTA award. The panel majority emphasized that it does not follow that the later-filed patent must be invalidated by the earlier-filed reference patents simply because it expires later. The majority noted that “Cellect does not address, let alone resolve, any variation of the question presented here – namely, under what circumstances can a claim properly serve as an ODP reference – and therefore has little to say on the precise issue before us.”

The Federal Circuit also [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Patent by Secret Process: Perils of Pre-Patent Profiting

by | Aug 22, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that the asserted process patents were invalid under the America Invents Act (AIA) because products made using the patented process were sold more than one year before the patents’ effective filing dates. Celanese International Corporation, et al. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Reyna, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Celanese owns patents that cover a process for making the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium (Ace-K). It was undisputed that Celanese’s patented process was in secret use in Europe and that Ace-K produced using this process had been sold in the United States before the patents’ effective filing dates. Under pre-AIA caselaw, such sales of products made using a secret process before the critical date would trigger the on-sale bar and invalidate any later-sought patent claims on that process. However, because Celanese’s patents had effective filing dates after March 15, 2013, the AIA rules applied. Thus, the case hinged on whether the AIA altered this rule.

In 2019, in Helsinn v. Teva, the Supreme Court addressed similar facts and confirmed that the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA “on sale” case law, which established that “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, still applied. In Helsinn, the patentee had obtained a patent related to a fixed dose of palonosetron. Prior to the critical date, the patentee entered into a supply and purchase agreement with a third party that covered this same fixed dose of palonosetron. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress, by reenacting similar language in the AIA concerning the on-sale bar, appeared to have adopted the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA interpretation of the on-sale bar. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with Federal Circuit pre-AIA precedent, an inventor’s prior sale of an invention to a third party can qualify as invalidating prior art even if the third party is obligated to keep the invention confidential.

However, unlike in Helsinn, where the claimed invention was the very subject of the commercial sale at issue, Celanese’s patents covered the secret process used to make Ace-K, and it was only the resulting Ace-K that was the subject of commercial sale – not the patented process itself. Although this distinction would not alter the outcome under pre-AIA law, Celanese averred that the AIA had revised the rules for this specific situation. To support its theory, Celanese referenced, among other things, the AIA’s use of the phrase “claimed invention” as opposed to simply “invention” as recited in pre-AIA discussion of the on-sale bar. According to Celanese, this change implied that the invention specifically “claimed” must be on sale to qualify as invalidating prior art.

The ITC rejected Celanese’s argument, concluding that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that “a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability.” Accordingly, the ITC found that Celanese’s patents were invalid because Celanese sold Ace-K made using its secret process more [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Don’t Mess With Anna: Texas Town Schools Patent Owner on § 101

by | Aug 1, 2024 |

On cross-appeals from a granted Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 12(c) motion on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent directed to a method for “assist[ing] an investigator in conducting a background investigation” did not claim patent-eligible subject matter, but that the mere assertion of the patent did not render the case “exceptional” for the purposes of attorneys’ fees. Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, Case No. 22-1753 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2024) (Moore, C.J.; Cunningham, Stoll, JJ.)

Miller Mendel sued the City of Anna, Texas, for infringement of claims directed to software for managing pre-employment background investigations based on the Anna police department’s use of the Guardian Alliance Technologies (GAT) software platform. Miller Mendel’s complaint asserted “at least claims 1, 5, and 15” of the patent, each of which generally recited a “method for a computing device with a processor and a system memory to assist an investigator in conducting a background investigation” comprising the steps of receiving data identifying the applicant, storing the data, transmitting an applicant hyperlink to the applicant’s email address and receiving an applicant’s response.

Anna moved for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the patent claims were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. After the district court granted the motion, Miller Mendel filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate any unasserted patent claims. The district court denied the reconsideration motion but clarified that its decision was limited to asserted claims 1, 5 and 15. Anna also filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, which the district court denied, finding that the case was not exceptional. Miller Mendel appealed the § 101 issue, and Anna cross-appealed on the unasserted claims and attorneys’ fees issues.

The Federal Circuit first addressed Miller Mendel’s argument that the district court erred in relying on a declaration filed by Anna in ruling on the Rule 12(c) motion. The Court acknowledged that a Rule 12(c) motion must be treated as one for summary judgment if matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court. However, the district court explained that the declaration was not relevant to its decision, and it did not rely on any material outside the pleadings in its § 101 analysis. Thus, the Federal Circuit found that any error in failing to explicitly exclude the declaration was harmless.

Turning next to the patent eligibility analysis, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that under Alice step one, the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of performing a background check. The claims and specification emphasized that the invention was a system to “help a background investigator more efficiently and effectively conduct a background investigation” by “automating a majority of the tasks of a common pre-employment background investigation so that fewer hardcopy documents are necessary.” In other words, the problem facing the inventor was the abstract idea of performing background checks more efficiently [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Beware Equitable Doctrine of Issue Preclusion in Multiparty, Multivenue Patent Campaigns

by | Aug 1, 2024 |

Addressing for the first time whether an invalidity order merges with a voluntary dismissal for purposes of finality, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an interlocutory order merges with the final dismissal, rendering the interlocutory order final for purposes of issue preclusion. Koss Corp. v. Bose Corp., Case No. 22-2090 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2024) (Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.). As a consequence, the Federal Circuit found that the patent owner’s appeal from an adverse decision in an inter partes review (IPR) was moot under the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel.

In July 2020, Koss filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bose in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents whose common specification discloses a “wireless earphone that communicates with a digital-audio source, such as an iPod, over an ad hoc wireless network like Bluetooth.” The same day, Koss asserted the same patents against Plantronics. Bose filed a motion challenging venue and also petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the three patents. Later in 2020, Bose filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of noninfringement in the District of Massachusetts on the three patents Koss asserted against Bose in the Texas litigation. The Massachusetts litigation was stayed pending the resolution of the venue motions in the Texas case.

In 2021, the Texas court dismissed Koss’s complaint against Bose for improper venue. Koss then asserted a counterclaim of infringement of the same three patents in the Massachusetts litigation. The Massachusetts court again stayed the litigation pending the resolution of the IPRs, which (by that time) the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had instituted. Meanwhile, Koss’s case against Plantronics was transferred to the Northern District of California, and Plantronics moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that all the asserted claims (which included all the claims asserted against Bose) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The California court granted Plantronics’s motion, rendering all the asserted claims invalid. However, that order did not finally dispose of the case.

Koss then moved for leave to amend its complaint, which the California district court granted. In the amended complaint, Koss asserted two additional patents. Plantronics moved to dismiss the asserted claims in those patents as invalid under § 101. The parties fully briefed Plantronics’s motion, but before the district court issued a decision on the merits of that motion, Koss voluntarily stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, disposing of the lawsuit in its entirety. Koss did not ask the district court to vacate its earlier order finding certain claims invalid under § 101. The California district court then issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. The deadline for Koss to appeal the judgment came and went – Koss did not appeal.

Arguing that the patents had been finally adjudicated invalid in the Plantronics litigation, Bose moved to dismiss Koss’s appeal from the Board in the IPR proceedings as moot. Koss opposed the motion, arguing that its amended complaint rendered the invalidity decision on the prior complaint non-final because the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

AI Takeover: PTO Issues More Patent Eligibility Guidance for AI Inventions

by | Jul 25, 2024 | ,

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, which focuses on subject matter eligibility for artificial intelligence (AI)-based inventions. 89 Fed. Reg. 58128 (July 17, 2024).

The new guidance is part of the PTO’s ongoing efforts since 2019 to provide clarity on the issue of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and to promote responsible innovation, competition and collaboration in AI technology development as espoused in the Biden administration’s Executive Order 14110, “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” The guidance follows on the heels of the PTO’s recently issued Guidance on Use of AI-Based Tools in Practice Before the PTO and Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions.

The new guidance aims to assist PTO examiners, patent practitioners and stakeholders in evaluating the subject matter eligibility of patent claims involving AI technology. The guidance includes three main sections:

  • Section I provides background on issues concerning patentability of AI inventions.
  • Section II provides a general overview of the PTO’s patent subject matter eligibility guidance developed over the past five years.
  • Section III provides an update to certain areas of the guidance applicable to AI inventions.

As in the prior subject matter eligibility updates and discussions, the guidance document’s analysis of subject matter eligibility focuses on the Alice two-step analysis: an evaluation of whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract ideas, natural phenomena, laws of nature), and if so, an evaluation of whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and/or an analysis of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception itself. The guidance highlights a number of relevant recent Federal Circuit cases and is further accompanied by three new examples with hypothetical patent claims for assisting PTO examiners in applying the guidance to an analysis of patent claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The PTO requests written comments to the guidance through the Federal eRulemaking Portal by September 16, 2024. If there is anything to be gleaned from the guidance or the current state of patentability for AI inventions, the topic will remain highly controversial and heavily debated.



read more

New Arguments Yield Same Unpatentability Outcome

by | Jun 13, 2024 |

On remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in connection with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board considered the petitioner’s reply arguments and evidence regarding the claim constructions that were first proposed in the patent owner’s response but again found that the claims were not unpatentable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., IPR2020-00712; -00680 (May 30, 2024) (Tartal, Jeschke, Dougal, APJ)

Axonics filed IPR petitions challenging two patents owned by Medtronic that are directed to the transcutaneous charging of implanted medical devices. In its petitions, Axonics did not propose any express claim constructions. In its preliminary response, Medtronic agreed that claim construction was not necessary. In its patent owner response, however, Medtronic – for the first time – advanced a new claim construction that differed from the interpretation of the relevant claims implied in Axonics’s claim charts. Axonics defended its own implicit construction but also offered new arguments and evidence that the prior art anticipated the patents even under the alternative construction. The Board adopted Medtronic’s new claim construction but refused to consider Axonics’s new arguments and evidence because they were first presented in the reply. The Board then found that Axonics failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Axonics appealed.

Axonics did not dispute the new claim construction first introduced by Medtronic in its response and adopted by the Board; it argued only that the Board erred in refusing to consider its reply arguments and evidence under the new construction. The Federal Circuit agreed, concluding that in such a situation, “a petitioner must be given the opportunity in its reply to argue and present evidence of anticipation or obviousness under the new construction, at least where it relies on the same embodiments for each invalidity ground as were relied on in the petition.” The Court remanded for the Board to consider Axonics’s new arguments.

On remand, the Board considered Axonics’s new arguments and evidence that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the prior art under the new construction. It also considered Medtronic’s amended sur-reply. The Board again determined that none of the challenged claims were unpatentable. In its analysis, the Board pointed out that some of Axonics’s new arguments and evidence regarding what the prior art disclosed in light of the new claim construction were inconsistent with the arguments and evidence it initially offered in its petition. In particular, the Board observed that the declaration testimony of Axonics’s expert regarding the prior art, on which Axonics relied in its petition, did not support the new claim construction, even considering the expert’s supplemental declaration. The Board also rejected Axonics’s attempts in its post-remand brief to discredit Medtronic’s arguments as “untimely and wrong,” “incorrect” and “contradictory of the positions on infringement it has taken in district court.” Citing the Federal Circuit, the Board pointed out that in an IPR, the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO Collaborates With UK Counterpart to Address Standard-Essential Patents

by | Jun 13, 2024 |

On June 3, 2024, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director Kathi Vidal and Chief Executive Officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Adam Williams signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) designed to tackle various issues related to standard-essential patents (SEPs).

SEPs are patents that have been declared essential to a particular technical standard. Common examples of technical standards with active SEP bases include cellular communication and other wireless standards, such as LTE, 5G and Wi-Fi. Standards are typically adopted by Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs). To have input on standard adoption, many SSOs require participants agree to license any patents that result from discussions with potential licensees on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms (See e.g., ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy).

But what are FRAND terms, and who gets to decide whether they issue? While individual patents are territorial (e.g., a US-issued patent is only enforceable in the United States), patent owners often obtain patent coverage in multiple jurisdictions. This can lead to challenges wherein a court in one jurisdiction may determine FRAND terms for a patent in that jurisdiction, which may then set or significantly influence the FRAND rate for the patent owner’s corresponding patents in other jurisdictions.

While the MOU is not public at this time, the PTO indicated that the MOU sets forth a framework for the following action items:

  • Cooperate on activities to facilitate collaboration and exchange of information on policy matters concerning SEPs to better ensure a balanced standards ecosystem.
  • Explore means to educate small- and medium-sized enterprises seeking to implement or contribute to the development of technical interoperability standards on FRAND terms.
  • Examine ways of improving transparency in the FRAND licensing of technical interoperability standards.
  • Engage in outreach to stakeholders to raise awareness of issues related to SEPs.
  • Discuss means to incorporate additional jurisdictions into the PTO and IPO’s activities concerning SEPs, including exploring a venue for broader discussions.

The agreement remains in place through June 3, 2029. PTO Director Vidal emphasized that “[t]his important collaboration with UKIPO will help us work together toward a fair and balanced international standard essential patent ecosystem that benefits all businesses in our two countries, including small and medium-sized enterprises and new market entrants.”



read more

Section 337 Doesn’t Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be “Patentee”

by | May 30, 2024 |

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 for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, Commission Opinion (May 15, 2024).

In late 2022, Samsung Display filed a complaint seeking to institute a Section 337 investigation based on its infringement allegations regarding four patents and seeking an exclusion order against replacement displays sold by various companies. In late 2023, on the eve of the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ granted the respondents’ motion for summary determination that the complainant lacked constitutional standing because Samsung Display had granted its parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., an implied license to the asserted patents with an unrestricted right to sublicense. Samsung Display petitioned for Commission review. On review, the Commission reversed.

The Commission first noted that because it’s an administrative tribunal and not an Article III court, the “case or controversy” requirement does not apply to parties before it and standing is instead based on its governing statute. The Commission acknowledged its previous decisions where it had applied a constitutional standing requirement and expressly overruled those decisions. It further noted that its statute does not include the “patentee” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 281 that applies to plaintiffs in district court actions but reiterated its long-standing practice of requiring a complainant be the owner or exclusive licensee of the asserted patent(s) at the time of filing the complaint.

The Commission held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Samsung Display was a “patentee” when it filed the complaint. The Commission found there was an open question as to whether Samsung Electronics actually had a right to sublicense without Samsung Display’s explicit or implicit authorization. The Commission thus remanded the investigation to the ALJ to conduct further proceedings to develop the factual record.



read more

Patent Thicket Avoidance: PTO Proposes Changes to Terminal Disclaimer Practice

by | May 23, 2024 |

On May 10, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice) concerning major changes to the terminal disclaimer (TD) practice, which may lead to a sea change in patent prosecution strategies. The proposed change would require a TD to include an agreement from the patent owner that the patent will be unenforceable if it’s tied directly or indirectly to another patent having any patent claim invalidated or canceled based on prior art. 89 Fed. Reg. 40439 (May 10, 2024).

The rule change is a potential boon for patent challengers and is intended to promote innovation and competition by allowing a competitor to avoid enforcement of patents tied by TDs to patents with claims finally held unpatentable or invalid. Under current practice, invalidation of a patent tied to another patent by a TD does not directly affect the patentability of the other patent. Under the new rule, a competitor could target a single patent in a validity dispute in a post-grant challenge without the need to seek review and invalidation of other related patents. As a result, invalidating one claim in a patent tied to other patents by TDs would render all other tied patents unenforceable.

According to the Notice, the proposed change aligns with the US government’s intent to reduce drug costs and promote competition by reducing barriers to market entry in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order 14036 on “Promoting Competition in the American Economy.” Part of the reduced costs are said to come from bringing down the cost of challenging large “patent thickets” of multiple patents covering a single product or minor variations of the product tied by TDs.

The proposed rule change would represent a paradigm shift for TD practice. Current TD practice under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) allows applicants to file multiple patents with claims varying in only minor ways from one another by filing TDs to obviate obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejections over closely related patent claims issued or pending in applications commonly owned or commonly owned on the basis of a joint research agreement. In filing a TD, the applicant agrees to disclaim any patent term extending beyond the term of the prior patent having similar patent claims.

The proposed rule seeks “to revise 37 CFR 1.321 (c) and (d) to require that a terminal disclaimer filed to obviate nonstatutory double patenting include an agreement by the disclaimant that the subject patent or any patent granted on the subject application shall be enforceable only if the patent is not tied and has never been tied directly or indirectly to a patent by one or more terminal disclaimers filed to obviate nonstatutory double patenting in which:

(1) any claim has been finally held unpatentable or invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 . . . by a Federal court in a civil action or by the PTO, and all appeal rights have been exhausted; or

(2) a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES