Rule 42.23(b) is clear, “A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to extend the Motion to Amend (MTA) pilot program. This program provides additional options for a patent owner...more
The PTAB’s Standard Operating Procedure 2 permits the public to submit nominations for PTAB decisions that an individual believes should be designated as precedential or informative, or to suggest that a decision previously...more
Ocado Group (“Petitioner”) filed a petition requesting a post-grant review of a claim from U.S. Patent No. 10,696,478 (’478 Patent) owned by AutoStore Technology (“Patent Owner”). The Board concluded that the Petitioner did...more
When filing an IPR, petitioners should be careful not to take for granted one of the most fundamental aspects of challenging validity in this forum: Whether or not the relied upon references qualify as prior art. Pursuant to...more
In Microsurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, No. PGR2021-00026, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held that disclaimed claims should be considered for...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Microsoft Corporation v. FG SRC, LLC, No. 2020-1928 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2021), is a stark reminder that an IPR petitioner must always set forth its grounds in its petition with...more
This blog has previously discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, — F.3d —, No. 2020-1937, 2021 WL 2176796 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021). See Telepharma Disconnect: Federal...more
A Sotera-style stipulation has once again convinced the PTAB to not exercise its discretion to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In Ocado Group PLC v. AutoStore Technology AS,...more
On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision. This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure...more
6/30/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Review ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interim Measures ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
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
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
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
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
10/30/2020
/ § 315(b) ,
Exceptional Case ,
Hague Convention ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proof of Service ,
Sanctions ,
Summons ,
Time-Barred Claims
Current PTAB-relevant case law dictates:
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in...more
This week, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the AIA’s “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs, L.P., No. 18-916, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr....more
4/27/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
As Jones Day's PTAB Litigation Blog marks its 500th posting, Dave Cochran and Matt Johnson discuss current patent litigation developments, near-term trends, and how the PTAB is handling cases during the COVID-19 lock down....more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
2/19/2020
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Samsung ,
Section 112
During an inter partes review (IPR), it is usually the Petitioner that raises grounds of unpatentability against a Motion to Amend that the Patent Owner must defend in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Is the...more
On February 28, 2019, GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) filed a Complaint against Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”), directed to a method for controlling a computer to...more
11/13/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
FRCP 12(f) ,
Motion To Strike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Question of Fact ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
Section 101
Last year, this blog discussed various strategic considerations for litigants seeking declarations of invalidity in district court actions to avoid being precluded from also seeking inter partes or other post-grant review...more
10/14/2019
/ Counterclaims ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims
If you don’t have new grounds to add, you may as well copycat. On September 4, 2019, the PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 (“the ’487 patent”); furthermore,...more
The PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) has concluded that the one-year time bar for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered by the service of a complaint alleging infringement even if “the serving...more
On July 2, 2019, Judge Cote of the Southern District of New York issued an opinion that denied a motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the defendant to withdraw its petitions for inter parties review (“IPR”) at the...more
7/11/2019
/ Forum Selection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Irreparable Harm ,
License Agreements ,
Misappropriation ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Samsung ,
Trade Secrets
In Power Integrations v. Semiconductor Components, the Federal Circuit ruled that privy and real-party-in-interest (RPI) relationships arising after a petition is filed but before institution may bar institution under section...more
6/28/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Chevron Deference ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Mergers ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Privity of Contract ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims