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
Patent Owner, C.R. Laurence Co. Inc. (CRL), filed a patent infringement suit against Petitioner, Frameless Hardware Company LLC (FHC) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,074,413 (the ‘413 patent) directed to framing members...more
In OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Katherine Vidal, issued a precedential decision regarding OpenSky’s violation of the Director’s express order and...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
The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2022 through the end of August 2022 (Oct. 1, 2021 through August 31, 2022) stands at 66% (706 instituted, 366 denied) compared to 59% in the previous fiscal year. The...more
On June 10, 2022, the PTAB in Apple Inc. v. MemoryWeb LLC denied Apple’s “conditional” IPR petition but instituted review of Apple’s concurrently-filed PGR petition, finding that MemoryWeb’s U.S. Patent No. 11,017,020 (“the...more
On July 6, 2022, a panel of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) administrative patent judges granted institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue University. See...more
On May 3, 2022, a panel of three PTAB administrative patent judges granted a motion for additional discovery in TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v. Parkervision, Inc., IPR2021-00985, (PTAB 2022), in which the PTAB deemed the...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision on May 27, 2022 in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., set forth that Patent Commissioner, Drew Hirshfeld, was within the bounds of the U.S. Supreme Court’s United States v. Arthrex...more
On May 9, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Hillman Group, Inc.’s (“Hillman’s”) three petitions for inter partes review. See The Hillman Group, Inc. v. Hy-Ko Products Co. LLC, IPR2022-00168, -00169, and -00174....more
Within the past few weeks, the PTAB has issued new guidance addressing a number of important issues including the use of applicant admitted prior art, the Director review process, and changes to PTAB hearings going...more
Since the passage of the America Invents Act in 2012, both petitioners and patent owners have expressed concerns regarding the procedures and practices of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In an effort to respond to...more
6/24/2022
/ America Invents Act ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Legislation ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
USPTO
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Director Vidal is initiating sua sponte review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions to institute inter partes review of two patents owned by VLSI Technology LLC,...more
On June 16, Senators Leahy, Cornyn, and Tillis introduced the PTAB Reform Act of 2022. The full text of the bill is available...more
In a recent decision, 25 F.4th 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the PTAB’s decision that estopped a Petitioner from maintaining a third IPR that challenged the same...more
On May 26, 2022, the Patent Office issued its “Interim Process for PTAB Decision Circulation And Internal PTAB Review”. The Office issued the Process to explain its new procedures for circulating pre-issuance decisions, which...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
On March 3, 2022, Andrew Hirshfeld, the Commissioner for Patents and acting Director of the USPTO, issued the third post-Arthrex grant of Director Review for two separate Final Written Decisions issued by the PTAB based on a...more
In Laboratoire Francais du Fractionnement et des Biotechnologies S.A. v. Novo Nordisk Healthcare AG, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied the Petitioner’s motion to terminate the inter partes review (IPR) and to...more
The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for claims 1 and 46 of U.S. 7,464,040 in eClinicalWorks, LLC et al. v. Decapolis Systems, LLC, IPR2022-0229, Paper 10 (PTAB April 13, 2022). The denial was...more
Typically, a Motion for Joinder to an earlier post-grant review (“PGR”) must be filed within one month of the institution of the earlier PGR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b).While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) does have...more
The PTAB recently denied a motion to dismiss a Revised Petition and terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding despite Petitioner’s alleged withdrawal of the Original Petition and failure to comply with the word limit...more
4/4/2022
/ Certificates of Compliance ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Motion to Withdraw ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Regulatory Requirements ,
Tesla
In the PTAB’s recent decision in Code 200 v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01503, Paper No. 13 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2022), the PTAB expounded upon the circumstances in which joinder of a “me-too” case under § 315(b) was not...more
Following the grant of institution of a recent IPR petition in the matter of Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, IPR2021-00662, Paper 26 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2022) concerning U.S. Patent No....more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) declined to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding despite the Petitioner’s alleged failure to identify all the real parties-in-interest (RPIs)....more