Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

All Grounds Must Be Addressed in Final Written Decision

On July 29, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick circulated a memorandum to Members of the PTAB entitled “Final Written Decision Procedures for AIA Trial Proceedings.” ...more

Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more

Acting Director Clarifies Multi-Petition Policy for Competing Constructions

On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Stewart released an informative decision vacating institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) based on two petitions that were primarily filed to present two different constructions....more

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more

“Settled-Expectations” Analysis May Leave Some Petitioners Feeling Unsettled

As discretionary denials are on the rise and institution rates are declining at the PTAB (link), recent decisions from the PTAB have introduced the notion of a patent owner’s “settled expectations” as another reason for the...more

Discretionary Denial Where Inventors Petitioned for Unpatentability

Coke Morgan Stewart, the acting director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), exercised discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny Tessell’s (“Petitioner’s”) petition in favor of Nutanix (“Patent...more

Discretionary Denial of IPR Institution Due to Advanced Hatch-Waxman Litigation

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”) after applying the Fintiv factors, despite Petitioner’s...more

Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on “Settled Expectations”

Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more

USPTO Acting Director Denies IPR Institution Based on "Settled Expectations"

Under a new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") policy issued in March 2025, pre-institution inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings are now bifurcated, consisting of a first phase in which the director considers...more

April 2025 Institution Rate Slips Below 45 Percent

The PTAB has published its monthly statistics wrap up for April 2025. As expected, those statistics show a significant decline in the institution rate compared to the first six months of the fiscal year. In those first six...more

Acting Director Releases First Decisions Under New Bifurcated Process

On May 16, 2025, USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart released the first four discretionary denial decisions under the PTAB’s new process. Under the new process, the parties separately brief discretionary denial issues...more

Director Review: PTAB Instructed to Allow Narrowly Tailored Discovery Regarding Time Bar

USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently vacated and remanded three Final Written Decisions from the PTAB.  Semiconductor Components Indus. v. Greenthread, LLC, IPR2023-01242, IPR2023-01243, IPR2023-01244, Paper 94...more

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

PTAB Finds Petition Time Barred

In 2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied inter partes review (“IPR”) institution where the petition was time barred under 35 U.S.C. § ...more

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Provisionals’ Disclosures Must Fully Support an Issued Claim for Pre-AIA Priority

The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more

PTAB Pendulum Swings in Favor of Discretionary Denial

Recent developments at the USPTO suggest a significant shift in favor of the PTAB exercising discretionary denial and uncertainty on behalf of parties to PTAB proceedings.  ...more

Motivation to Modify Prior Art Need Not Be the Same as Challenged Patent

Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the...more

PTAB Retains Jurisdiction Of Expired Patents

The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more

PTAB Rescinds Discretionary Denial Memorandum

On Friday, the USPTO rescinded its June 21, 2022, guidance memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation.”  That memorandum discussed...more

Two Separate Analyses: Nonobviousness vs Enablement

Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement.  Duration Media...more

310 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