The PTAB denied institution of a second inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filed by Aylo Freesites (“Petitioner”) after having previously instituted inter partes review of Petitioner’s first petition related to the same...more
1/13/2025
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Denial of Institution ,
Dish Network ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
The USPTO has extended the public comment deadline in order to afford all stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in on the subject matter eligibility of AI inventions....more
9/23/2024
/ Artificial Intelligence ,
Comment Period ,
Deadlines ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Machine Learning ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Public Comment ,
USPTO
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
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the Board when it allowed Apple to expand its analogous art contention in its IPR reply, finding that the Board’s decision did not run afoul of the...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB granted institution of an IPR despite multiple parallel district court proceedings involving the same patent, and flatly rejected the Patent Owner’s argument that the Petitioner’s “conflicting”...more
After finding that Apple infringed certain AliveCor patents related to wearable devices capable of monitoring a user’s cardiac activity, the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) entered a limited exclusion order and a cease...more
A PTAB panel recently granted a Petitioner’s motion to submit a second expert declaration that directly addressed deficiencies identified by the PTAB’s Institution Decision. While a “close” case, the panel concluded that...more
In the precedential decision Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017), the PTAB articulated seven non-exclusive factors to be considered before discretionarily denying a...more
The Patent Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. In a recent denial of a motion for attorney fees pursuant to § 285, an Ohio...more
In a recent decision invalidating numerous claims of a patent related to cochlear implants for hearing loss, the PTAB found that Petitioner improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) as the “basis” for one...more
4/22/2022
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Lack of Authority ,
Patent Applicants ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Statutory Authority
The Federal Circuit recently issued another decision in a longstanding dispute between Willis Electric Co. and Polygroup Ltd. involving two patents owned by Willis (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186 and 8,454,187) directed to...more
2/3/2022
/ CAFC ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Vacatur
The Federal Circuit continues to be flooded with petitions to revisit its panel decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As previously discussed, all three parties in...more
As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew has generated significant discussion and controversy in the patent world. On December 16, both parties...more
The PTAB recently denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of a decision denying institution of inter partes review, rejecting the argument that the Board’s denial was based on an erroneous analysis of the “non-exhaustive”...more
9/10/2019
/ Denial of Rehearing ,
Evidence ,
Expert Witness ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
On March 13, 2019, the PTAB issued the fifth installment of its ongoing Motion to Amend Study, which tracks and analyzes motions to amend filed in AIA trials through September 30, 2018 (end of Fiscal Year 2018).
The data...more
When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim is invalid...more
This decision should be a welcome development for patent applicants seeking review.
On July 27, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794...more
8/10/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 145 ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
American Rule ,
Attorney's Fees ,
En Banc Review ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Split of Authority ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
The America Invents Act (“AIA”) provides that a “[a] person may not file a petition for [covered business method review] unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement or...more
On February 5, 2018, the PTO filed a petition for rehearing of Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol’ns, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 22, 2017). The petition asks the panel “not . . . to alter its judgment, but only to...more
2/14/2018
/ Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Intervenors ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO