On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Arthrex, et al., striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an...more
6/25/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
In a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued last week, the Board confirmed that the “enhanced estoppel” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) applies to co-pending inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion issued on November 1, 2018 clarifies the standard for a document to qualify as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and reversed an earlier Patent...more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey is a cautionary tale for patent practitioners regarding conduct during patent prosecution that can be framed as bad faith. This can become an expensive misstep during...more
6/6/2018
/ Attorney's Fees ,
Bad Faith ,
Exceptional Case ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 285 ,
USPTO
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief...more
5/18/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Evidence ,
FRAND ,
Good Faith ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
Further to our ongoing coverage of the post-TC Heartland patent litigation landscape, a pair of recent and interesting cases from Texas and Delaware further evolved this important venue-related jurisprudence....more
We first covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017), a case with the potential to substantially alter the patent litigation landscape,...more
12/8/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
In June, we covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017). The Court will decide whether inter partes review – an adversarial process...more
In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question...more
6/24/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
CAFC ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
Right to a Jury ,
SCOTUS ,
Separation of Powers ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
In its opinion in Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of prosecution disclaimer to statements made by a patent owner during Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. The Court explained...more
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more
8/24/2016
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Common Sense Exception ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Google ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motorola ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Vacated