Fish & Richardson - News and Alerts
1160
page,page-id-1160,page-template-default,logged-in,admin-bar,no-customize-support,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.5.2,menu-animation-underline,smooth_scroll,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-4.11.2.1,vc_responsive

News & Events

Alerts

December 19, 2013

Validity Challenges: District Court Vs. Patent Office

This article first appeared in Law360 on December 18th, 2013, and is available for download in full.
Written by Dorothy P. Whelan and John Dragseth.

In 2013, inter partes review and covered business method review — two new procedures created by the America Invents Act — fully joined ex parte re-examination as options for challenging validity in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Each offers a profoundly different forum for adjudicating validity compared to U.S. district court. At the same time, many PTO-based challenges proceed in parallel with a related district court litigation, creating the possibility of inconsistent results — a possibility that was realized in two important 2013 decisions: Fresenius USA Inc. v. Baxter International Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2013) and Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd., IPR2013-00012 (PTAB Mar. 19, 2013). Both decisions illustrate the complexities that the availability of different tribunals has created, and the challenges that litigants face when executing an enforcement or defensive strategy.

November 14, 2013

USPTO Issues First Decision Under Inter Partes Review Process, Sides with Garmin International

Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, IPR2012-00001,
Paper 59 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2013).
Written by Dorothy P. Whelan and Karl Renner.

On November 13, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued the first final written decision in an IPR proceeding. The PTAB held that the three claims that were the subject of the trial were unpatentable as obvious over combinations of multiple references. Several aspects of the PTAB’s decision are notable.

July 2, 2013

Fish Leverages Ex Parte Reexamination to Win Federal Circuit case for Fresenius

July 2, 2013
Press Release

Boston, MA, July 2, 2013 — Fish & Richardson announced today that it won an appellate decision in a patent infringement case for Fresenius USA, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. against Baxter International and Baxter Healthcare Corporation regarding a patent for a hemodialysis machine.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a July 2, 2013 decision, held that federal trial and appellate courts are required by statute to dismiss pending patent cases if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has cancelled the asserted claims through reexamination.

Fresenius sued Baxter in 2003, seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe any valid claims of certain Baxter patents.  Baxter counter-sued for patent infringement.  In 2005 Fresenius hired Fish as new counsel for the district court litigation, and Fish quickly filed a request for ex parte reexamination of Baxter’s patents.

May 18, 2013

Avoiding Waiver with Thorough Explanation of Anticipated Motion

ChiMei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., slip op. IPR2013-00038 (PTAB Apr. 26, 2013)
May 17, 2013.
Written by Adam Shartzer, Timothy Riffe, Karl Renner, and Dorothy Whelan

In ChiMei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00038, notice-18, Order, Conduct of the Proceeding (April 26, 2013), the PTAB held that a party’s failure to adequately describe an anticipated motion may be grounds for dismissal or exclusion of the motion(s) from the motion list.  By adequately describing the purpose and reasons for a motion, the anticipated moving party can provide sufficient notice to the PTAB and non-moving party.

Fill out the form below to receive our monthly newsletter and updates on your selected areas of interest. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.