The PTAB recently denied a motion to correct clerical mistakes under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) because the corrections presented substantive new evidence that would have had a substantial impact on the proceedings and prejudiced...more
A district court has ruled that the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not apply to invalidity grounds that relied on physical products. The court also declined to apply judicial estoppel, notwithstanding...more
In a recent decision issued in Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Huber Engineered Woods LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressed the showing that a petitioner for inter partes review must make to demonstrate that an asserted...more
In a recent inter partes review (IPR), a patent owner overcame a facially persuasive obviousness challenge by relying on evidence from an earlier litigation to establish objective indicia of nonobviousness.
In RTI...more
A petition for inter partes review (IPR) has been denied because the petitioner failed to rebut the patent owner’s claim of priority raised in its preliminary response. In denying institution, the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
An accused infringer in a district court case could not take advantage of a prior claim construction ruling from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding involving unasserted claims of the same patent. The Patent Trial and...more
Relying heavily on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of an inter partes review (IPR) petition involving the patent-in-suit, a court in the Eastern District of Virginia recently refused to let the defendant amend its...more
When bringing a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent, careful pleading may allow plaintiffs to avoid the restrictions against later seeking inter partes review (IPR) of that patent, while also...more
- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, that the PTAB’s application of the one-year time limit for petitions for inter partes review, set out in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), is not subject to...more
4/23/2020
/ § 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
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently considered whether a dispute over a patent’s priority date justified filing two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the same claims.
The...more
In a remanded inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC had successfully antedated a prior art reference asserted by Petitioner Motorola...more
A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument that would have expanded inter partes review (IPR) estoppel seemingly beyond the plain reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The plaintiff had...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently held that a certificate of correction fixing an error in a patent’s claim of priority did not apply retroactively in light of an already issued final written...more
A recent ruling from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) highlights the critical role that collateral estoppel (also known as issue preclusion) can play in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. In a final written...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has rejected a patent owner’s argument that judicial estoppel should prevent a petitioner from making obviousness arguments in support of its petition for inter partes review (IPR)....more
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, finding that the PTAB applied the wrong standard when it presumed there was a nexus...more
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of patents relating to printer technology, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Patent Owner’s motion to compel testimony over Petitioner’s arguments that the information...more
12/27/2019
/ Attorney Communications ,
Discovery ,
FRCP 26 ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Compel ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Testimony ,
Work-Product Doctrine
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently issued an Order that illustrates the circumstances in which a party may obtain additional discovery in an inter partes review (IPR). In Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical...more
11/11/2019
/ Additional Discovery ,
Cross Examination ,
Discovery ,
Document Productions ,
Expert Witness ,
Garmin Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Scope of Discovery Requests
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) by the Secretary of Commerce violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court then...more
11/4/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Power of Appointment ,
Remand ,
Removal ,
Secretary of Commerce ,
Vacated
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has rejected a patent owner’s argument that a forum selection clause found in a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) barred the Board from instituting a petition for inter partes review...more
10/21/2019
/ Equitable Estoppel ,
Forum Selection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion to Transfer ,
Non-Disclosure Agreement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Samsung
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted in part a Patent Owner’s motion to strike Petitioner’s Reply for improperly raising new arguments and citing new evidence. The Board, however, declined to throw out the entirety...more
10/14/2019
/ Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petitioner Reply Briefs ,
Prior Art ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
State of the Art Defense
The Federal Circuit recently overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) determination that claims covering a cancer treatment method were obvious.
The patent at issue is directed to a method of treating...more
A magistrate judge determined that a prevailing party in a district court litigation could be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees based solely on conduct during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding.
In September...more
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that statutory disclaimer terminates the case or controversy between the parties in an infringement suit as to those claims, and immediately deprives the district court of the authority to take...more
9/9/2019
/ Appeals ,
Claim Preclusion ,
Disclaimers ,
Judicial Authority ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Vacated