In our previous post we started talking about discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings under 37 CFR § 42.51 and, in particular, the scope and timing of seeking limited additional discovery under Rule...more
The expert declaration provides a unique opportunity for Patent Owners to bolster their case during the discovery period of an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding. We previously detailed how to effectively use an expert...more
We’ve previously written that the best defense to an IPR challenge is avoiding IPR institution altogether. In addition to the other tips discussed in this series of posts, another strategy for avoiding institution is focusing...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal...more
3/6/2018
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Standard of Review
On March 31 we posted about the Patent Office rolling out a series of rulemakings for improving post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) pursuant to public feedback to a Request for Comments...more
8/24/2015
/ Additional Discovery ,
Claim Construction ,
Comment Period ,
Confidential Information ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Regulations ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Regulation ,
Rule 11 ,
USPTO