Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Jon Wright
PPI-hotspotID for detecting protein-protein interaction hot spots from the free protein structure
eLife assessment The article presents a machine-learning method to predict protein hotspot residues. The validation is incomplete, along with the misinterpretation of the results with other current methods like FTMap.
Big cows and big emissions: Smoke and mirrors in the seedstock industry
Coota Park Blue-E produces moderate cows, which are managed to reduce intake therefore reducing emissions. Picture supplied There is an easy formula that seedstock producers can follow, ride the wave of breed and coat colour premiums, present big, fat, shiny bulls, and pair that with slick marketing to create huge sale prices and a sense of excitement around the 'brand'. But do these principles stack up in the paddock when it counts?
Churches help African farmers with climate change
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
USPTO Confirms Different Frameworks for Pre-AIA and Post-AIA Prior-Art Determinations | JD Supra
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc.[1] The decision, which issued in March 2023, held that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s framework in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.[2] for prior-art determinations applies only to pre-AIA determinations and not to post-AIA determinations.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone models, and Apple had been sued by Qualcomm for infringement of the ’949 patent. So Intel had an interest in invalidating the ’949 patent. After instituting, the Board consolidated the three proceedings.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, 33 F.4th 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Newman (dissenting), Lourie, and Stoll) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupr
Atlanta Gas petitioned for inter partes review of Bennett’s ’029 patent. The Board initially rejected Bennett’s argument that Atlanta Gas was time barred from petitioning for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and instituted review. The Board then determined that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the prior art. On Bennett’s appeal to the Federal Circuit, the court disagreed with the Board’s time-bar determination and vacated the Board’s unpatentability determination.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Best Medical Int’l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (Hughes, Linn, and Stoll) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on the ’096 patent, initiated by Varian, was also ongoing during the IPRs. The reexamination challenged, among others, claims 1 and 18 of the ’096 patent.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions | JD Supra
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November, members of the public could attend. Turning to the statistics, the number of appeals from the U.S.
Claim construction: What is it essentially all about?
When considering the boundaries of the monopoly associated with a patent, it is necessary to interpret the claims of the patent accurately to properly stake out the metes and bounds of the monopoly claimed. In the recent decision in Pharmacia LLC v Juno Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 92, Burley, J found it necessary to consider certain terms within the claims of the corresponding patent in order to gain a proper understanding of the scope of the claims, and thus, the invention claimed.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions: Introduction | JD Supra
Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no exception. It briefly returned to live oral arguments towards the end of the year before returning to telephonic arguments due to the rise of various COVID-19 variants. Turning to the statistics, appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) dipped for the second straight year in FY21.
PTAB Strategies and Insights - July 2021: Can the PTAB Adopt a New Construction of an Agreed-Upon Term? | JD Supra
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp.[i], the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated patent owner Qualcomm’s rights under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by not giving it notice and a chance to respond to the Board’s sua sponte construction of a claim term that neither Qualcomm nor petitioner Intel had disputed. The Court vacated the invalidity decision and remanded for further proceedings.
Double patenting in New Zealand – you possibly did not need an oracle to see this one coming - Intellectual Property - Australia
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. Double patenting has been seen as a significant issue in New Zealand patent law ever since the introduction of the Patents Act 2013 – and with it, the removal of any discretion on the part of an examiner.
PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021: Can Forum Selection Clauses Prohibit IPRs? | JD Supra
New Vision Gamingi touches on an interesting forum-selection issue currently before the Federal Circuit in at least one other case. The issue is the enforceability of a forum-selection clause in an agreement between parties that attempts to prohibit the filing of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition. New Vision and SG Gaming, Inc.
PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021 | JD Supra
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire patent life cycle in a global portfolio.
PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2021: Take Care When Relying on Non-Self-Enabling References | JD Supra
In Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 20-1755 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2021) (precedential), the Federal Circuit issued a rare reversal of a PTAB final determination of obviousness because the principal reference used in the obviousness combination was not “self-enabled,” and no other record evidence cured that defect. Raytheon owns U.S. Patent No. 9,695,751. The ’751 patent is directed to a multi-stage, geared, gas turbine aircraft engine.
PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2021 | JD Supra
[co-author: Yuke Wang, Patent Agent] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire patent life cycle in a global portfolio. This month we cover: - What you need to know about the latest requests for the Supreme Court to resolve alleged Fed. Circ.
M&K Holdings v. Samsung | JD Supra
Samsung sought inter partes review of M&K’s U.S. Patent No. 9,113,163. The Board held all claims unpatentable. M&K appealed, arguing that the Board erred by relying on references that do not qualify as prior art printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In addition, M&K argued that the Board erred by finding claim 3 anticipated when the petition for inter partes review asserted only obviousness as to that claim.
PTAB Strategies and Insights - February 2021 | JD Supra
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire patent life cycle in a global portfolio.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | JD Supra
Adidas petitioned for inter partes reviews (IPR) of two Nike patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluded that Adidas had not met its burden to show that the challenged claims in Nike’s patents were obvious. Adidas appealed. As a threshold issue, the Federal Circuit addressed Adidas’s Article III standing to appeal.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Amneal Pharm. LLC v. Almirall, LLC, 960 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | JD Supra
Abbreviated new drug (ANDA) applicant Amneal petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of Almirall’s patent listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book for a prescription drug to treat acne. Almirall brought suit in district court after Amneal filed its ANDA. During settlement discussions, Almirall offered Amneal a covenant not to sue on one of its patents contingent upon dismissal of the IPR, but the parties could not reach a settlement.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, 971 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | JD Supra
Security People lost an inter partes review (IPR) and appealed to the Federal Circuit. It lost that appeal and was denied certiorari at the Supreme Court. Security People never raised constitutional arguments in any of these proceedings. Security People subsequently filed suit against the Patent and Trademark Office in district court alleging that the application of the IPR proceeding to cancel its patent violated Security People’s constitutional right to due process.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
In Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), the Supreme Court held that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to apply the time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court had to reconcile this outcome in Thryv with its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018).
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Sealy Tech., LLC v. SSB Manufacturing Co., 825 F. Appx. 795 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
SSB sought inter partes reexamination of a Sealy design patent. After reexamination, the decision was appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The single claim in the patent recites “[t]he ornamental designs for a Euro-top mattress design, as shown and described.” Figure 1 of the patent (left) and the Aireloom Heritage mattress, which the Board found invalidated the patent, (right) are reproduced below.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir. 2020) and Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 966 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
The patent claim survival rate before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board continues to strongly favor petitioners. Accordingly, motions to amend the challenged claims have been growing among patent owners in inter partes reviews (IPRs). While the Board is still confined to the petition and its rationales in reviewing the patentability of challenged claims, it is not so constrained in reviewing proposed amendments. In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Comcast Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 951 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | JD Supra
The International Trade Commission found a violation of Section 337 by Comcast X1 set-top boxes, and Comcast appealed two issues of statutory interpretation underlying the Commission’s finding. First, Comcast argued that its set-top boxes did not infringe—directly or indirectly—at the time they were imported. Second, Comcast argued that others—not Comcast—imported the set-top boxes.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Mayborn Grp., Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 965 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
Mayborn petitioned the International Trade Commission to rescind a general exclusion order (GEO) after the complainants informed Mayborn that its self-anchoring beverage containers were potentially subject to the order. The petition sought to prove that the patent was invalid, and the Commission denied the petition because the discovery of potentially invalidating prior art was not a “changed condition” under § 1337(k)(1). Mayborn appealed, and the Commission challenged Mayborn’s standing.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (U.S.) | JD Supra
In October 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Federal Circuit’s holding in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), that the scheme for appointing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s administrative patent judges is unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause. The Constitution’s Appointments Clause provides that principal “Officers of the United States” must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et. al., Nos. 2018-2338, -2339, -2395, -2396, 2020 WL 6814481 (modified November 20, 2020) (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Gol
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the instituted IPR. The Board denied HP’s request. HP then filed another IPR petition containing only the grounds on which the Board had instituted and filed a motion to join the instituted IPR. The Board granted HP’s motion and held that the claims were not unpatentable.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Fanduel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC, 966 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Interactive Games’ patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and found all but dependent claim 6 to be unpatentable as obvious. Specifically, in its petition, FanDuel argued that claim 6 was obvious over three references: Carter, Walker, and an archived copy of a webpage (the Slot Payouts Webpage).
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | JD Supra
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Google applied for a patent on video-on-demand systems. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims as obvious, stating that Google’s responses to the examiner’s rejections were “conclusory” and failed to include any construction of the contested terms. Google appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Acoustic Technology, Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., 949 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Acoustic sued Itron for infringement of its patent, and the two parties settled, with Itron taking a license to the patent. Acoustic later sued Silver Spring for infringement. Silver Spring petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent, while also discussing a potential merger with Itron. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board subsequently instituted review, and Silver Spring and Itron completed their merger. The Board ruled against Acoustic.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Data and Trends: AIA PTAB Appeals to the Federal Circuit (Infographics) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
These charts and graphs appear in the firm's Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions report. Please click on the report link for more information and analysis. Appeals from the USPTO dipped in FY20, reaching their lowest level since FY15. After four consecutive years of declines in appeals from district courts, these cases levelled off in FY20.
Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Introduction | JD Supra
Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to largely continue its operations. The most visible of these changes was that the Court began to hear all arguments telephonically, with some early denials of at least some parties’ requests for an oral hearing.
Federal Circuit Appeals From The PTAB: Summaries of Key 2019 Decisions: Data and Trends: AIA PTAB Appeals to the Federal Circuit | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Federal Circuit Finds the Appointment of PTAB Judges Unconstitutional and Provides Remedial Solution | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
IP Hot Topic: USPTO Releases a Second Update to the PTAB Trial Practice Guide | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Patent box tax scheme - in Australia? | Lexology
Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, recently indicated before a business audience in the UK that the Australian government was considering implementing a patent box tax scheme much like tax schemes adopted by other jurisdictions, most notably, the UK, France, Ireland, Switzerland, the BeNeLux countries and China.
AU-EP Patent Prosecution Highway Extended | Lexology
Australia, European Union
July 9 2019 Following a successful three-year trial, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) have agreed to extend the bilateral Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program between them for a further three years.
2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions: Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 908 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2018) | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. - JDSupra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions: RPX Corp. v. Chanbond Llc, No. 17-2346, Order Granting Motion To Dismiss (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2018) (Nonprecedential); RPX Corp. v. Chanbond LLC, NO. 17-1686 (Cert Petiti
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Missed an Australian patent deadline? - “She’ll be right” | Lexology
Despite the best efforts of patent applicants, patentees and their attorneys, deadlines for undertaking certain actions can sometimes be missed for one reason or another. Fortuitously, Australian legislation is quite lenient when it comes to extensions of time, particularly where a deadline is missed due to a genuine error or omission.
Federal Circuit Holds That PTAB’s Determination on Whether the One Year Time-Bar Is Triggered in
On Jan. 8, 2018, eight months after the oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued its significant en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 2015-1944, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018).
PTAB Chief Judge Addresses Impact of SAS | JD Supra
On April 30, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a “Chat with the Chief” webinar to discuss the impact of SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018). The webinar was widely attended, drawing about 700 online attendees. Vice Chief Judge Janet Gongola moderated a panel consisting of PTAB Chief Judge David Ruschke and Vice Chief Judges Scott Weidenfeller and Timothy Fink.
PTAB issues post-SAS guidance | JD Supra
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Already signed up? Log in here By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources.
Supreme Court Strikes Down PTAB Partial Institution Practice: If PTAB Institutes IPR, It Must Address All Challenged Claims in Any Final Decision | JD Supra
The Supreme Court has ruled by a narrow majority of 5-4 that the Patent Office’s regulation allowing for partial institution decisions in inter partes review is foreclosed by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018). In striking down the Patent Office’s regulation allowing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute trial on fewer than all claims challenged in a petition, the Court has fundamentally altered the contours of inter partes review.
Supreme Court Upholds IPR as a Valid Procedure for Challenging Patent Validity: Majority Reasons that Patents are Revocable “Public Franchises” | JD Supra
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Already signed up? Log in here By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources.
Reverse or Remand: What is the proper remedy on appeal where the Board fails to carry its burden? | JD Supra
Is there a growing split in the Federal Circuit on the proper remedy where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) fails to carry its burden? The recent precedential decision of In re Hodges, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 817248 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2018) might suggest so. Let’s look at In re Hodges in view of two other cases that issued in 2017— In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.
Reverse or Remand: What is the proper remedy on appeal where the Board fails to carry its burden?
Is there a growing split in the Federal Circuit on the proper remedy where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) fails to carry its burden? The recent precedential decision of In re Hodges, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 817248 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2018) might suggest so. Let’s look at In re Hodges in view of two other cases that issued in 2017— In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Federal Circuit Holds That PTAB’s Determination on Whether the One Year Time-Bar Is Triggered in
Federal Circuit Holds That PTAB’s Determination on Whether the One Year Time-Bar Is Triggered in Inter Partes Review Is Reviewable on Appeal On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Jon
Contact Jon, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack