The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. The...more
The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more
In IPR2023-01058, the PTAB declined to institute IPR, finding that Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 243(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), such that there was no basis on which to...more
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
10/20/2023
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
The Board exercised discretion under § 314 to deny inter partes review in view of co-pending district court litigation. In the Institution Decision, the Board evaluated the Fintiv factors in light of the USPTO Director’s...more
In IPR2022-01242, Director Vidal clarified that her prior guidance, which allows the Board to institute inter partes review even if the Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial first requires the Board to find that Fintiv...more
The PTAB denied a request for institution and joinder because the petitioner was the petitioner in one other instituted IPR directed to the same patent, and the petitioner did not explain adequately to the PTAB why another...more
Click-to-Call (Plaintiff/Patent Owner) filed an infringement suit against Ingenio (Defendant/Petitioner) and others. Defendant filed an IPR challenging the asserted claims. In the IPR petition, Petitioner asserted multiple...more
F5 Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an IPR. WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a/ Brazos Licensing and Development (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. ...more
An ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recently issued an initial determination holding that PGR estoppel prevented GMG Products LLC (Respondent) from raising two prior-art products in the ITC....more
3/24/2022
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
America Invents Act ,
Estoppel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Priority Patent Claims
Petitioner (Apple, Inc.) filed a petition to institute inter partes on a patent owned by Koss Corporation (Patent Owner). The PTAB considered six factors from Fintiv to assess whether to exercise authority to deny...more
In a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed that state universities cannot use sovereign immunity to avoid patent challenges at the PTAB stating that, “sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR...more