DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
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
Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC v. Greenthread LLC, IPR2023-01242, -01243, -01244 (USPTO Apr. 30, 2025) - The USPTO Director’s recent decision in Semiconductor Components v. Greenthread squarely addresses a recurring...more
Apple Inc. v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2022-1249 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit allowed Apple’s challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Fintiv rules to proceed, at least...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
In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to include certain evidence first presented in the petitioner’s Reply but...more
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...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
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated patent owner Qualcomm’s rights under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by not giving it notice and a chance to...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more
Samsung sought inter partes review of M&K’s U.S. Patent No. 9,113,163. The Board held all claims unpatentable. M&K appealed, arguing that the Board erred by relying on references that do not qualify as prior art printed...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all...more
274-1 Federal Circuit Revisits American Axle & Manufacturing; Case Remanded to Determine if One of the “Hooke’s Law” Claims is Ineligible under Other Theories of Eligibility - The Federal Circuit recently issued a modified...more
ALACRITECH, INC. V. INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, LLC, DELL, INC. Before Stoll, Chen, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB’s obviousness determination must meet the Administrative Procedure...more
In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more
On Thursday, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must give the parties proper notice if considering a sua sponte theory of unpatentability in relation to a motion to amend. In doing so,...more
The only real answers we are hearing from the patent community is that no one knows what to do or what might happen next --- post Arthrex. As a quick reminder – the Federal Circuit ruled (1) the current PTAB judges were...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - General Electric Co. v. United Techs. Corp., Appeal No. 2017-2497 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019) - The Case of the Week focuses on standing to bring an appeal of an adverse decision by the PTAB in...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) In an appeal of an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed for the first time the...more
When the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute regarding partial IPR institution, the PTAB estimated that there were several hundred pending IPRs in which the Board had instituted some, but not all, claims and/or...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - In re Power Integrations, Inc., Appeal No. 17-1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) - In In re: Power Integrations, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) rejection of a...more