Skip To Main Content
Thomas L. Irving on Muck Rack

Thomas L. Irving

United States
As seen in: The National Law Review, Lexology, Mondaq, Finnegan Intellectual Property Law Podcasts
Tom Irving is a partner at Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP and frequent lecturer on patent law. @IPO; @AIPLA;
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

Get in touch with Thomas L.

Contact Thomas L., search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.

Learn more about Muck Rack

Actions

Share this page

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

PTA and After-Allowance Papers: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t?

|
By Sneha Nyshadham, Gracie K. Mills, Stacy Lewis, Thomas L. Irving
| Lexology Verified
Holding In Eurica Califorrniaa v. Vidal, No. 22-1640 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2022) (non-precedential), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the USPTO (“PTO”), agreeing with the PTO’s patent term adjustment (“PTA”) calculation. Background Califorrniaa’s patent at issue is U.S. Pat. No. 10,245,075 (“the ’075 patent”). Califorrniaa received a Notice of Allowance on Dec. 11, 2018. Id. at *4.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

Possible Defects Won’t Render Prior Art Inoperative

|
By Emma Ng, Stacy Lewis, Thomas L. Irving, Amanda Murphy, Colin Kreutzer
| Lexology Verified
Holding In Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Converter Manufacturing, LLC, IPR2021-00916, Paper 70; IPR2021-00918, Paper 75; IPR2021-00919, Paper 77 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2022) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) invalidated all challenged claims of three patents: US 9,908,281; US 10,189,624; and 10,562,680. This post focuses on the earliest patent and its corresponding IPR to discuss the inoperability issue that appears in all the three IPRs/patents.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?

Dialing up Fixes to Your Patent Claims: So Relaxing!

|
By Alissa Green, Angeline L. Premraj, Thomas L. Irving, Stacy Lewis
| Lexology Verified
Holding In American National Manufacturing Inc. v. Sleep Number Corp., Nos. 21-1321, 21-1323, 21-1379, 21-1382 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2022), the Federal Circuit held that as long as a claim amendment proposed during an IPR does not enlarge the scope of the claims, does not add new matter, and responds to a ground of unpatentability in the proceeding, the patent owner may also make additional amendments to a claim.
Open in Who Shared Issue with article?
See all 57 articles