Contributor Page
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 312 474 6300
Fax: +1 312 474 0448
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
IL 60606-6357
United States
By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D.
Serial IPR petitions directed to previously-challenged patents account for many of the petitions filed with the PTAB; however, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) provides the Board with discretion to reject petitions...
By Eric Brusca, Ph.D.
Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. sued Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., in federal district court, accusing them...
By William K. Merkel
In Shinn Fu Co. of America, Inc. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., Dkt. No. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2017), Shinn Fu appealed the Board's holding in IPR2015-00208...
By Julianne Hartzell
The Federal Circuit, Supreme Court, and PTAB have been addressing a number of big issues in 2017 and 2018. Here are the cases you should know.
By Sandip H. Patel
In re Janssen Biotech, Inc., Appeal 2017-1257 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2018), is a cautionary tale concerning patents protecting a blockbuster drug providing patients an important therapy ...
By Tron Fu
Can the disclosure in a prior art reference be too extensive for the art not to anticipate? According to a recent decision, the Federal Circuit apparently thinks so.
By Kate Nuehring Su
The Board recently denied a post grant review petition because the challenge was deemed redundant of the Patent Office's earlier examination of similar claims in a related application.
By Michael Weiner
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2017-1239 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner Arthrex, before instituting inter partes review.
By Heather R. Kissling
PTABWatch Takeaway: Sovereign immunity is not available to dismiss an IPR challenge where the Patent Owner has filed an infringement action against the Petitioner.
By Sandip H. Patel
In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit decided on January 8, 2018, that the PTAB's application of the 35 U.S.C § 315(b) ...
By Ryan Phelan
The Postal Service filed a CBM petition to challenge the patentability (including the patent eligibility via 35 U.S.C. § 101) of certain asserted claims.
By Ryan Schermerhorn
Last fall, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that affirmed an Examiner's rejection of various claims in an ex parte reexamination because the Examiner's interpretation of the claims...
By Michael Weiner
In CRFD Research Ltd. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis, in part by failing to consider an argument the IPR petitioner made in...
By Eric Brusca, Ph.D.
In Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, No. 2016-1706 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded multiple IPR decisions where the PTAB failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence.
By Sandip H. Patel, Michael Weiner
Seven judges of the fractured court decided that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not—as it has long been doing— place on a patent owner the burden of proving patentability of a claim it moves to amend during an AIA trial.