IP Litigation – IP Law Watch

USPTO Proposes Rule Changes to Refocus Inter Partes Review Proceedings

Oct 17 2025

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed significant changes to the rules governing Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These revisions aim to enhance fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes, while curbing duplicative and costly litigation. Notably, these changes do not apply to Post-Grant Review (proceedings that must be filed within nine months of the patent issue date).

All Eyes on EYLEA–Sandoz Defeats Preliminary Injunction

Sep 22 2025

The recent decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v Sandoz shows how a strong noninfringement position can be powerful to resisting a preliminary injunction. The dismissal of the Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron) and Bayer Australia Ltd and Bayer Consumer Care AG (together Bayer) parties’ application for interlocutory relief aligns with the recent trend away from granting preliminary (interlocutory) injunctions in pharmaceutical patent cases. While the trend has primarily arisen from the court’s recognition that the calculation of damages for a new market entrant is likely to be more difficult than that for the patentee, this was a, but not the main driving, factor in this case.

Sage Advice from the Federal Court: Stylisation of Collab Marks

Sep 19 2025

In Paige v Sage and Paige¹, the Federal Court considered the existence of brand collaborations in the fashion industry, colloquially known as “collabs”, in assessing the deceptive similarity of trade marks.

Federal Circuit’s First Foray Into AIA-Derivation Proceedings

Sep 11 2025

The Federal Circuit recently issued its first review of a derivation proceeding, a rarely used proceeding provided for by the America Invents Act (AIA).

Let’s Make it a Date–Best Method and the Filing Date of the Earliest Complete Application

Aug 11 2025

In the recent decision of NOCO Company v. Brown and Watson International Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 887¹, Moshinsky J has provided welcomed clarity around the relevant date by which the best method known to the applicant is to be identified for divisional patent applications. Namely, the relevant date is the date from which the term of the patent is calculated. This means that for divisional patent applications, it is the filing date of the earliest complete or PCT application, not the individual filing date of each divisional application. And thus, it is at the time of filing the PCT application that the best method known to the applicant needs to be included in the specification.

USPTO Director Ends IPR Against Midas Green Technologies

Jul 27 2025

On 25 July 2025, K&L Gates secured an important win for its client, Midas Green Technologies, LLC. Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director review and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Midas Green’s competitor, Green Revolution Cooling, Inc., which had sought to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 10,405,457—currently being asserted by Midas Green in a parallel lawsuit pending in the Western District of Texas. The patent describes a modular immersion cooling system that circulates dielectric fluid to cool vertically mounted electronic appliances, such as computer servers, in a tank.

Estoppel Estopped?

May 13 2025

The Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending district court litigation. While some district courts had earlier found estoppel to have broad effect, and thus prevent challenges based on products on sale or public use, the Federal Circuit’s decision means that estoppel is limited only to challenges based on patents or printed publications, opening the door to use patents and publications to provide evidence of what subject matter was “on sale” or “in public use.”

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates “Informative” Decision Regarding Claim Construction

Mar 20 2025

On 20 March 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as “Informative” the majority opinion in the Decision Denying Institution in IPR2024-00952, a decision originally entered on December 13, 2024.

UK Supreme Court Judgment Finds Directors may not be Liable for IP Infringement Without Knowledge of Essential Facts

May 30 2024

Earlier this month in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the company directors of Hornby Street Limited, siblings Kashif and Bushra Ahmed, were not jointly liable with their company for trade mark infringement.

Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges

May 23 2024

On 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc).

Category:IP Litigation