The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not...more
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 Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted a petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information, over patent owner’s objections, concerning the public availability of references that were relied upon to support grounds...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 USPTO Director vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision denying institution of inter partes review for not addressing alleged differences between references in the petition and those considered during prosecution....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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a patent owner’s motion to terminate an inter partes review proceeding finding that the unidirectional nature of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) renders common-law claim...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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to institute inter partes review, finding there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioners would prevail on their obviousness challenges. In rendering its decision, the...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
Objective evidence of nonobviousness traces its roots to 19th century case law from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The analysis of such secondary considerations as commercial success, failure of others, and long-felt but...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
On September 22, 2017, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision regarding claims directed to a switching regulator comprising a power switch and a control circuit. The PTAB found...more
10/9/2017
/ Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Hearsay ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Exclude ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 103 ,
Semiconductors ,
Testimony
On January 30, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “the Board”) granted in part the petitioner’s motion to strike various declarations of a named inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more