Category Archives: Post-Grant Issues

Fairchild (Taiwan) Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc.

In my last post, I discussed estoppel in the context in inter partes review, in which defendant filed for IPR after losing in the courts. The Board found the claims-in-suit to be obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the courts and … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Post-Grant Issues, Post-issuance procedures | Leave a comment

Novartis AG, LTS et al. v. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Prior Judicial Opinions Don’t Bind the PTAB

After Novartis’ patents were found nonobvious by the Fed. Cir., affirming the Delaware District Court, defendant Noven filed for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6316023 and 6335031, on rivastigmine and an antioxidant. The PTAB found the asserted … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Court, Obviousness, Post-Grant Issues | 1 Comment

Is the Halo Broken Already?

Last week Docket Navigator delivered a troubling headline regarding a recent District Court decision – “Invalidity Opinion Delivered After Product Launch No Defense to Willful Infringement.”  As a practitioner who regularly drafts non-infringement and invalidity opinions, this sort of headline … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Post-Grant Issues | Leave a comment

Broad Institute/MIT/Harvard CRISPR Patents Survive PTO Interference

Yesterday, the PTAB in interference 106,048 issued a short order finding no interference- in- fact between the claims of 12 Broad Institute patents (US Patent Number 8,697,359 et al.) and the application held by  The Regents of the University of California … Continue reading

Posted in Post-Grant Issues | Leave a comment