USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently issued a decision discretionarily denying five petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by iRhythm against patents owned by Welch Allyn based on a factor that had not...more
The USPTO has launched a sweeping recalibration of its post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, signaling a decisive pivot back toward discretionary denials of patent challenges. With the rescission of prior procedural guidance, a...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented 37 CFR § 42.75 on October 31, 2024, establishing a formal framework for Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. During her tenure, Director...more
In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit added several new wrinkles to amendment practice in inter partes review proceedings. The court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that most of the original...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm. Inc. addressed a unique situation in November 2023 whereby the Patent Trial and Appeal Board failed to issue its Final Written Decision...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued an update to its procedures for interim Director Review (DR) of decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), evidencing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s efforts...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 20 seeking comments on proposed changes to America Invents Act trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and...more
A recent Federal Circuit opinion clarified that patent owners carry the burden of proving that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel applies to invalidity grounds not included in their IPR petitions. The Federal Circuit also...more
US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Katherine K. Vidal recently designated as precedential a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) in IPR2020-01234, which granted rehearing and modified the...more
Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal recently designated as precedential a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejecting the petitioner’s invalidity challenge, since it was based...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly considered evidence of multiple witnesses to be sufficient in corroborating actual reduction to practice when...more
The PTAB Digest 2021/2022 provides an overview of PTAB statistics, trends, and updates that impact strategies and business decisions for patent owners and petitioners alike.
Significant developments included the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted the institution of an inter partes review in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, despite the existence of a parallel proceeding in the US District Court for the...more
The USPTO has issued interim procedures curbing the PTAB’s discretionary denials over post-grant proceedings associated with parallel ITC proceedings or district court litigation. ...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found in a recent inter partes review—DraftKings Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC—that DraftKings’ proposed combination of prior art would have been obvious when Interactive Games’ mobile...more
In Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that decisions by the US Patent and Trademark Office Director vacating ex parte reexamination based on estoppel may be subject to judicial...more
The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board on December 23, 2021, instituted an inter partes review even though an unrelated party had already unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the patent in district court. In the decision...more
The US Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision on June 21 in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., addressing whether the authority of administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to...more
6/24/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
In response to arguments made by the US government in an appeal pending before the US Supreme Court, members of Congress requested an investigation into the adequacy of due process afforded to Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
6/9/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Due Process ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS
As of 2020, post grant proceedings have been in use for eight years. Designed as an alternative to district court litigation post grant proceedings have offered litigants a faster and more cost effective forum for resolving...more
It has been argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) cannot engage in rulemaking through decisions made by its administrative patent judges (APJs), even if those decisions are made precedential, as APJs...more
12/28/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Proof ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standing ,
Substitute Claims ,
USPTO
The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in three cases relating to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s controversial October 2019 decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. In Arthrex, the Federal...more
10/19/2020
/ 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Polaris Innovations Ltd v Kingston Technology Co ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tenure ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly refused to substitute proposed amended claims for being directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101....more
In B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., published June 26, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In a recent opinion in ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that 35 USC 314(d), which bars appellate review of US Patent and Trademark Office decisions to...more