PTAB

Subscribe to PTAB via RSS

The Federal Circuit’s decision last fall in Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., Appeals 2025‑1210, ‑1211 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2025), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Jan. 22, 2026) (link), offers important guidance on the meaning of disclosures “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e)—a word-pairing that often determines whether a reference qualifies as prior art during prosecution and in litigation (including in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings).* The court’s opinion not only affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s conclusion of obviousness in these IPRs but also clarified the legal standard for inventive entity identity, drawing heavily on the CCPA’s decision in In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (CCPA 1966).Continue Reading The High Hurdles in Disqualifying Prior Art

Practitioners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are well-acquainted with the statutory bar on judicial review of institution decisions. But what happens when the Board defers—for more than a year—a decision to rehear its non-institution decision, waiting for the Federal Circuit to clarify claim construction in parallel litigation involving the same patent and same parties? In Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Appeal 2024-1381 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (“EBS”), the Federal Circuit addressed this scenario, providing a practical reminder of the limits of appellate review and the Board’s procedural discretion.Continue Reading PTAB’s Delay in Instituting IPRs Is Not Reviewable on Appeal

To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Our precedent is clear—nothing more is required.

In Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed the qualifications necessary to…

In Voice Tech Corp v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision that the challenged claims of Voice Tech’s patent were unpatentable for obviousness, determining that the PTAB’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. At issue were claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,491, 679, which relates to use of…

In Virtek Vision Int’l. ULC v. Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc. the Federal Circuit reversed in part the PTAB’s final written decision in an IPR petition filed by Assembly Guidance, on the basis that the petition failed to identify a motivation to combine elements present in the prior art, stating that: “A reason for combining must exist.” Virtek Vision Int’l ULC v. Assembly Guidance Sys., Inc., 97 F.4th 882, 888 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Court determined that Assembly Guidance had failed to provide any reasoning why one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the disclosures of the prior art references, and therefore did not show that the challenged claims were unpatentable.Continue Reading Give Me ONE Reason: Federal Circuit Requires At Least One Reason for Motivation to Combine

As discussed in a recent post, On May 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, significantly impacting design patent law. The court overturned the long-standing Rosen–Durling test, a two-part test used to assess the obviousness of design patents. This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for patent practitioners and clients alike.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Abandons Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness

In LKQ v. GM, a May 21, 2024 en banc decision on an appeal of an IPR final written decision determining that the challenged claim of GM’s U.S. Design Patent No. D797,625 (directed to the design for a vehicle front fender) was not obvious, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision, overruling the Rosen–Durling test for obviousness of design patents and articulating general guidance for a new obviousness test it determined was more consistent with Supreme Court authority, in particular the “flexible standards” applied in Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U.S. 674 (1893), Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), and KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reframes Test for Obviousness of Design Patents

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the Patent Office’s decision to reject claims in four separate reexamination cases due to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 22-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023). This decision is important because it expands ODP, a doctrine judges developed long ago, when patents…

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.