* Disclaimer:The following case summaries should not be relied upon as or for legal advice. Click here for more details.

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.
(U.S. 17-1229)(S. Ct. 2019)(PDF, 11 pages)
A commercial sale to a third party who is required to keep the invention confidential may place the invention "on sale" under 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.
(Docket #: 2018-1638)(Fed. Cir. 2018)(PDF, 25 pages)
A Native American tribe (the "Tribe") cannot dismiss an IPR against a patent owned by the Tribe based on the Tribe's sovereign immunity.
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, et al.
(U.S. 16-712)(S. Ct. 2018)(PDF, 33 pages)
The USPTO's inter partes review (IPR) procedure does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution (the decision to grant a patent is a public-rights matter and Congress has permissibly reserved the USPTO's authority to reconsider any such grant).
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.
(U.S. 16-969)(S. Ct. 2018)(PDF, 28 pages)
When the USPTO institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged.
Aqua Products, Inc. v. Joseph Matal
(Docket# 2015-1177)(Fed. Cir. 2017)(PDF, 148 pages)
In an inter partes review procedure, the burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims is on the petitioner.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International et al.
(U.S. 13-298)(S. Ct. 2014)(PDF, 21 pages)
Method, computer-readable medium, and corresponding system claims directed to a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations in which a trusted third party settles obligations between a first and a second party recite patent-ineligible subject matter.