Following guidance from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB has vacated a previous Board decision granting Covered Business Method review in Apple, Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018).
The PTAB’s...more
12/3/2019
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Apple ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inventions ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Technology
Last week, the Federal Circuit denied a motion to vacate and remand an IPR decision under Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Issued on October 31, Arthrex held that the method for appointing PTAB Administrative Patent...more
In September, the Patent Office revised Standing Operating Procedure 2 to create a new review path for designating opinions precedential or informational. Under the new rule, the review is performed by the Precedential...more
In a recent “same-party” joinder opinion, the PTAB broke with previous decisions to hold that it did not have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join new issues to an instituted IPR. Proppant Express Investments, LLC. V....more
Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018), reminds us that representations to the PTAB can have consequences in district court litigation, even outside the estoppel...more
The effects of SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018), continue to reverberate throughout the PTAB and federal district courts. In Prisusa Engineering Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No....more
The PTAB recently denied a motion for additional discovery that sought the production of documents argued to be relevant to inventorship. In Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. United Therapeutics, Corp., Case IPR2017-01621 and...more
A recent PTAB decision underscores the importance of establishing the level of ordinary skill for a successful obviousness challenge. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-00058, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2018). It is...more