In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These...more
5/9/2025
/ Apple ,
Claim Construction ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Stays
Back in May of 2020, European patent-licensing company Sisvel filed a flurry of lawsuits against a dozen tech companies who had allegedly infringed Sisvel’s portfolio of wireless communication and networking patents. A...more
3/12/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO ,
Wireless Industry ,
Wireless Technology
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released its Fiscal Year 2024 roundup for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. This comprehensive report provides valuable...more
1/17/2025
/ America Invents Act ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Settlement ,
USPTO
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review: Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC found a rule set file used by a network security program to be a...more
The Situation: Concerns that uncertain and unpredictable patent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence thwarts U.S. economic and technological advancements are especially acute in the fast advancing AI space. Stakeholders...more
The PTAB recently updated its Standard Operating Procedure 1 (SOP), which describes the process and guidelines for assigning judges to panels in all jurisdictions of the Board. This blog post highlights some of the key...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited (IPR2023-01219), recently denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent on a lighting system and control for...more
Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed one and vacated another Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in which the PTAB determined that Weber Inc. (“Weber”) failed to...more
On November 16, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal ordered a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) to review whether the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked certain issues when denying challenger SynAffix B.V.’s petition for inter...more
The Federal Circuit in Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, and Stark) affirmed a PTAB decision finding anticipated and/or obvious certain claims of two patents directed...more
10/31/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standard of Review ,
Trial Practice Guidance
In an effort to shed light on the practice of filing multiple petitions under the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently reversed obviousness rejections based on an Applicant demonstrating commercial success of an infant spoon, in Ex Parte Doug Gonterman and Jessica Lineberry. The PTAB found...more
6/21/2022
/ Commercial Success ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Retail Market
The Federal Circuit, in Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. Guards, Inc., 21-1759, in an opinion by Judge STOLL, dismissed Atlanta Gas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, Atlanta Gas filed an IPR which was...more
On February 28, 2022, in American Well Corporation v. Teladoc Health, Inc. IPR2021-00748, the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information. In this matter, the Board instituted a trial of all claims and all...more
On December 14, 2021, the PTAB instituted Post-Grant Review (PGR) for certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,855,671 (the ‘671 Patent) in Netskope, Inc. v. Bitglass, Inc., PGR2021-00091 while, on the same date, denying...more
The Federal Circuit in AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Patents (Fed. Circ. September 30, 2021, op. 21-1051) held that the PTAB partially abused its discretion when upholding one claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 for...more
In Unified Patents, LLC f/k/a Unified Patents Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (IPR2021-00827), the PTAB denied a patent owner’s request to file a motion for additional discovery into any real...more
According to a recent district court opinion, a party may waive its right to assert infringement on claims that it voluntarily agrees to give up (e.g., by abandoning the claims). Such a waiver will be enforced as an equitable...more
In Linksmart Wireless Tech., LLC v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. May 8, 2020) the Court addressed disputed claim terms in U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 (the “’459 Patent”), Linksmart had...more
6/19/2020
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Popular
In Think Prod., Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp., No. 18-CV-07506, 2019 WL 6609427, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2019), the District Court addressed whether the plaintiff patent ower was collaterally estopped from arguing validity in...more
On November 21, 2017, Petitioner Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC, filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 B2. In its Preliminary Response, filed on March 7, 2018, Patent...more
The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) will consider, at the behest of 360Heros, whether a complaint alleging patent infringement made by a party other than the patent owner of the patent triggers the § 315(b) time bar....more
5/20/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Amicus Briefs ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Legislative History ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Standing ,
Time-Barred Claims
Eleven days after the Federal Circuit’s en banc opinion in Wi-Fi Onc, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Nos. 15-1944, -1945 & -1946 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), a three-judge panel granted a petition by patent owner Click-to-Call...more
2/6/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadcom ,
Certiorari ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Remand ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
USPTO ,
Wi-Fi One
In an opinion dated October 12, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence that a challenged patent had survived twenty post-issuance proceedings,...more
11/13/2017
/ Estoppel ,
Evidence Suppression ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motions in Limine ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Split of Authority ,
Unfair Prejudice ,
Venue
In recent years, carmakers and suppliers have significantly increased the number of patent applications they file in the United States and abroad, but patent protection may not always be the right tool. Trade secret...more
5/3/2017
/ Automotive Industry ,
Connected Cars ,
Driverless Cars ,
Innovation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Software ,
Wireless Technology