Latest Posts › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Share:

Use It Or Lose It – Second Appeal Appointments Clause Challenge Deemed Forfeited

An April 13, 2021 decision by the Federal Circuit denied a motion to vacate and remand PTAB decisions based on the Federal Circuit’s October 2019 decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Newman, Inc., et al., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir....more

PTAB Statistics Through Five Months of FY2021

The institution rate for post-grant challenges in current FY 2021 (Oct. 1, 2020 through Feb. 28, 2021) stands at 61% (305 instituted, 198 denied) compared to 56% in the previous fiscal year. This rate is more consistent...more

Interference Estoppel Precludes All Arguments That Could Have Been Raised

This blog has previously discussed the effect of several different types of estoppel.  See, e.g., Estoppel Estopped for Remanded Claims, Reminder: Estoppel May Not Preclude Prior-Art Systems, and PGR Estoppel Applies to...more

District Court Indefiniteness Ruling Leads to Denial

The PTAB exercised its discretion in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. Acorn Semi, LLC, IPR2020-01182, Paper 17 (Feb. 10, 2021) to deny inter partes review based on a district court finding the challenged claims indefinite....more

Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion  [Audio]

Partners Matt Johnson and Sarah Geers talk about former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu's impact on the PTAB, and what we might expect from a new director under the Biden Administration. They also comment on why patent litigation...more

PRECEDENTIAL: Trial Court Stay Weighs Strongly Against Fintiv Denial

The USPTO designated Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00820 (PTAB October 21, 2020) (Paper 15) (“Snap”) as precedential as to § II.A regarding its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes...more

Boardside Chat: SAS, MTAs, Fintiv, and Indefiniteness

On January 28, 2021, the PTAB held a Boardside Chat webinar at which three PTAB judges discussed four recent developments related to America Invents Act (“AIA”) trials....more

Follow-On Petitions Must Be Justified and Timely

The PTAB recently held that the General Plastic factors weighed in favor of denying a follow-on IPR petition filed after the Patent Owner filed a preliminary response to an earlier petition challenging the same patent (U.S....more

Request for Second Fintiv Preliminary Reply Denied

On January 19, 2021, Petitioner, 10X Genomics, requested via email authorization to file 1) a five page brief addressing the Board’s institution decision in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLC, IPR2020-01204,...more

PTAB Greenlights Three Petitions Against One Patent

Although the PTAB had previously stated that it would “rarely” be appropriate for a petitioner to file multiple petitions against the same patent, in Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies Corp., IPR 2020-01104;...more

Jones Day’s Fintiv-ITC Developments Tracker

Although first briefly mentioned as a possibility in the August 2018 Trial Practice Guide Update (page 10), outside of one instance (Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, IPR2019-00567; -00568, August 8, 2019), PTAB discretionary...more

Estoppel Estopped for Remanded Claims

In General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00007-RWS, ECF No. 128 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to strike invalidity defenses as barred by IPR estoppel for...more

Staying Still: District Court Extends Stay Pending Appeal

District courts commonly stay patent litigation cases pending inter parties review (IPR) that assesses the validity of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Such stay may be lifted or extended...more

Multiple-Petition Strategies Fall Into Disfavor

The results of a recent update to the PTAB Multiple Petition Study show Petitioners face an uphill battle when attempting to utilize a multiple petition strategy. These results, discussed during the December 10, 2020...more

Reminder: Estoppel May Not Preclude Prior-Art Systems

The estoppel statute precludes a defendant who has challenged a claim in an IPR reaching final written decision from later challenging that claim on any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR...more

Fintiv Factor Cases Designated Precedential

On December 17th, the PTAB designated two decisions applying the Fintiv factors as precedential.  We will break these cases down in detail in the coming days on the PTAB Litigation Blog. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo...more

Fed. Cir. Reaffirms No State Sovereign Immunity in IPRs

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

Book As A Printed Publication? Read Carefully.

Be careful not to confuse reprints with new editions when considering books as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In VidStream LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2019-1734, 2020 WL 6937852 (Nov. 25, 2020), the Federal...more

PTAB Designates RPI, Follow-On Petition Cases Precedential

On December 4th, the PTAB designated the following three cases precedential: RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (Oct. 2, 2020) (precedential) - This decision on remand from the...more

Listserv Working Group Reference Not A Printed Publication

“Printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is typically construed to encompass any type of document, as long as the document is “publicly accessible.” See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....more

Nexus Required for Objective Indicia

In a recent precedential decision, the PTAB emphasized that objective indicia of nonobviousness must have a nexus to the claimed invention. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., No. IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24,...more

Filing Date Motion Granted Due To COVID-19

NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc., (Petitioner) who was otherwise barred from pursuing two IPR proceedings regarding patents owned by HandyLab, Inc. (Patent Owner) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year deadline, filed a Motion to Change...more

Fed. Circuit Cautions Against Narrow Application of Analogous Art Test

One of the steps in a proper obviousness analysis is to ascertain the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1,...more

Joinder Bid After Prior Petition Denial Fails

After being sued by Uniloc in April 2018 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 (“Reconfiguration Manager for Controlling Upgrades of Electronic Devices”), Apple challenged claims 1-21 of that patent at the PTAB in...more

District Court Issues Sanctions for Patent Owner’s Shapeshifting Arguments at the PTAB

Although infrequently awarded, district courts are empowered to issue sanctions for behavior at the PTAB that they deem “exceptional” under Octane Fitness. In Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group Limited,...more

312 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 13

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide