Latest Posts › USPTO

Share:

Skechers IPR Still Kicking After Director Review

In a Director Review, the Acting Director reversed a panel decision to discretionarily deny an IPR under § 325(d). The Acting Director held that the PTAB’s own findings in two previous IPRs sufficiently proved Examiner error...more

Navigating the New Discretionary Denial Bifurcated Framework

The USPTO recently published a new webpage on the Interim Director Discretionary Process, which provides information regarding the bifurcated process for consideration of discretionary denial issues announced in the March 26,...more

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

Cancellation of Claims Deemed An Inappropriate Sanction

USPTO Acting Director Stewart sua sponte reconsidered and modified a previous Director Review decision that had affirmed cancellation of all 183 challenged claims as a sanction against patent owner Longhorn Vaccines. ...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

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

PTAB Clarifies Interim Workload Management Process

On April 17, 2025, following Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart’s memorandum announcing a new interim process to manage the workload of all PTAB judges, the USPTO held a Boardside Chat outlining the new bifurcated process...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

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 Announces a Bifurcated Process for Consideration of IPR and PGR Petitions

A new interim process for the acting director to exercise discretion as to whether to institute an inter partes review ("IPR") or a post-grant review ("PGR") was announced on March 26, 2025, in which discretionary...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

PTAB Issues Updated Fintiv Guidance

After rescinding the June 2022 guidance regarding Fintiv, the PTAB issued updates to how they will consider discretionary denial issues under Section 314(a) on Monday.  ...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

Federal Circuit Remands Based On Inadequate Explanation

Palo Alto Networks (PAN) filed a petition for inter partes review of Centripetal Networks’ patent—U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903—which is directed to a computing system for correlating packets in communication networks with a...more

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the General...more

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art in an IPR?

On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...more

120 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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