The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement. ...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patent owner’s assertion that petitioner should have named a third party, which was a defendant in a related district court patent infringement litigation and a party to a joint...more
The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact....more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed an ITC holding that the AIA’s § 102 on-sale bar applies to the sale of a product made according to a secret process when that sale occurs more than one year before the patent’s effective...more
The District of Delaware granted-in-part Shopify’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively a new trial, citing gaps in the evidentiary record resulting in an insufficient basis for the jury verdict of...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petition was filed more than one year after patent owner had served a complaint for patent...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution and joinder of an inter partes review petition after determining that the petition was not only time-barred but that joinder was also foreclosed. In making its...more
In a patent infringement case, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of defendant’s technical expert’s rebuttal report on the basis that defendant failed to timely disclose non-infringing...more
Patent Office Director Katherine Vidal recently issued a precedential decision addressing an issue of first impression before the Board: whether the patentability of multiple dependent claims must be determined separately for...more
In a precedential 52-page sua sponte decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Katherine Vidal addressed several issues of first impression relating to sanctionable misconduct in inter partes...more
Petitioners moved for an order requiring Patent Owner to produce discovery comprising Final Infringement Contentions from related district court litigations between the parties. Petitioners set forth two independent bases...more
In a recent order, the Eastern District of Texas declined to preclude a defendant from raising prior art system references despite patentee’s argument that similar printed publications could have been raised in earlier inter...more
Applying recent Federal Circuit precedent requiring language evincing a present conveyance of patent rights, a district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania found that the contractual language “shall become the...more
In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert who did not possess the specific defined level of ordinary skill in the art could not testify about...more
The Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s finding of inequitable conduct on the basis that appellants and its lawyers intentionally withheld material information involving the on-sale bar from the United States Patent &...more
Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has denied defendants’ motion to stay the post-trial phase of a patent infringement litigation pending ex parte reexamination where the request for reexamination was filed four...more
3/6/2020
/ Administrative Remedies ,
Collateral Attack ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Motion To Stay ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Post Trial Motions ,
USPTO
In Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. MacroPoint LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) considered whether the time-bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) was triggered when a real party-in-interest had previously filed an...more
3/1/2019
/ Counterclaims ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Dismissals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prejudice ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ,
Time-Barred Claims