On January 19th, the PTO published an Executive Summary encapsulating stakeholder feedback received from the October 20, 2020 Request for Comments on institution of America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. The USPTO received...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
In a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed that state universities cannot use sovereign immunity to avoid patent challenges at the PTAB stating that,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
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
On December 8th, the PTAB published a Final Rule, formalizing a number of PTAB practices dictated by case law and described in the current Trial Practice Guide. The one substantive change of note is the removal to deference...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
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
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
The PTAB has added an online form to the USPTO website that allows the submission of an amicus request addressing a pending request for Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review. This form will enable interested parties to...more
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
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
11/6/2020
/ § 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
Apple ,
Denial of Institution ,
General Plastic Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Joinder ,
Microsoft ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
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
Total PTAB petitions remained flat in FY2020, with 1513 petitions total being filed: IPR (1429), PGR (64), and CBM (20), compared to 1464 in FY2019 and 1613 FY2018, down from 1901 in FY2017. September IPR petition filings...more
The Supreme Court has held the PTAB’s “decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct....more
10/21/2020
/ §314(a) ,
America Invents Act ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Denial of Institution ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Trial Practice Guidance
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the three appeals from the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex decision, consolidating those three cases for briefing and argument. The questions to be presented are as follows...more
Throughout the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) history, patent owners have tried to leverage a petitioner’s alleged failure to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) as a way to achieve denial of an inter partes...more
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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has added an online form to the USPTO website that allows any member of the public to nominate any PTAB decision for precedential or informative designation...more
The PTAB and District Courts do not always see eye to eye when it comes to prior art. On August 21, 2020, the Board issued a trio of final written decisions refusing to invalidate the claims of three patents, two of which...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of any inter partes review (IPR). Such discretionary denial may be based on a variety of considerations, such as the existence of an ongoing...more