In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based...more
Here, Hunting Titan petitioned for IPR of DynaEnergetics’ ’422 patent, asserting that the patent was anticipated in light of the Schacherer reference. The Board instituted the IPR and found all original claims unpatentable as...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction that would have forced the accused infringer to seek dismissal of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) based on a...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions IN RE: JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. [OPINION] (2021-160, September 2, 2021) (Lourie, Bryson, and Taranto) - Per curiam. Issuing writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court...more
Earlier this month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a request for rehearing in Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appl. Co., Ltd., No. IPR2020-00208, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. June 1, 2021), thereby instituting...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Communication Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1672 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week explores two important procedural issues: a court’s discretion to...more
Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,”...more
In a recent appeal of two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Board abused its discretion in denying...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) In an appeal from a district court decision awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision makes...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: In determining whether a party’s actions were “exceptional” under Octane Fitness, the District...more
In AdjustaCam v. Newegg, the Circuit reverses the denial of attorney fees where Judge Gilstrap simply adopted a pre-Octane Fitness determination by a prior judge, despite the Circuit’s post-Octane Fitness remand of the case...more
Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland patent-venue decision, the constitutionality of inter...more
Addressing the requirement to disclose the real parties-in-interest (RPI) for an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the petitioner’s request for rehearing regarding the...more