In a rare successful motion to amend, the PTAB found certain claims of a pipeline monitoring systems patentable, and allowed substitution of amended claims for others deemed unpatentable. See Syrinix Inc. v. Blacoh Fluid...more
Petitioners beware. The PTAB will not “play archaeologist with the record” or assume the burden of making arguments if the Petitioner fails to present the asserted reasons for invalidity with the required specificity. Amazon...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review of Perfect Company’s (“Patent Owner”) patent. Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR2018-01596 (March 6, 2019). A panel...more
Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (the “‘547 Patent”), which American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation (together “plaintiffs”) asserted...more
On December 6, 2018, the PTAB hosted a Boardside Chat webinar on hearsay and authentication. The Administrative Patent Judges presenting the webinar were Michael Zecher, Tom Giannetti, and Grace Obermann.
The webinar began...more
On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a petition to review the PTAB’s refusal to deny IPR institution under § 325(d), in a case where the challenged patent had survived several...more
In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00761, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2018), the PTAB denied institution of Shenzhen Silver Star’s IPR petition in view of an earlier challenge to the same patent by...more
In a recent PTAB decision, Petitioners learned the importance of addressing decisions from related IPRs when making arguments before the PTAB. Apple, Inc. and FitBit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Case IPR2017-00319 (PTAB Aug. 6,...more
The PTAB’s decision on whether or not to institute trial in a particular matter is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to...more
In Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 2016-1671, 2018 WL 2407172 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that had sustained the patentability of claim 1 of U.S. Patent...more
In an appeal from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings where Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) challenged two patents owned by Paice LLC (“Paice”), the...more
On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative....more
On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below. We previously reported on Hospira,...more
In a unanimous opinion issued on February 14, 2017, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s obviousness determination in Apple’s inter partes review against PersonalWeb and remanded for further...more