Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

PTAB Exercises Discretion When Rejecting Follow-On Petition Filed More Than One Year After Service of the Complaint with...

The AIA sets a one-year deadline to file a petition for IPR of a patent from the date a complaint for patent infringement is served. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). There is an exception: the bar does not apply when joining a second...more

10/10/2014 - America Invents Act Patent Litigation Patent Reform Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents

PTAB Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review When Ongoing Proceedings Raise Substantially Similar Arguments

In July 2013, Cardiocom filed a petition for IPR of a patent. Petitioner Medtronic then acquired Cardiocom. In January 2014, the Board decided to move forward on eight claims and declared trial on two obviousness grounds,...more

10/9/2014 - Inter Partes Review Proceedings Medtronics Patent Litigation Patents Prior Art

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petition by Same...

Petitioner Unilever filed an earlier petition for IPR of 33 claims of a patent. In the Decision on Institution, the Board denied review of 11 claims and granted review of the rest. Unilever then filed a second petition for...more

10/9/2014 - Inter Partes Review Proceedings Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Prior Art Unilever

PTAB Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review Remedying "Noted Deficiency" in Previously Denied Petition

Petitioner Metronic had previously filed two other petitions for IPR of a patent. The Board instituted trial on one of the petitions and denied the other. Medtronic then filed a third petition for IPR of the patent that...more

10/8/2014 - Inter Partes Review Proceedings Medtronic Patent Litigation Patents

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petitions by Different...

Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent. Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the Board had instituted trial on two of those three...more

10/8/2014 - Appeals Inter Partes Review Proceedings Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Prior Art

PTAB Declines to Revisit Written Description and Prior Art Issues Considered During Prosecution in IPR

In this inter partes review proceeding, the challenged patent, filed in July 2011, purported to be a continuation of a parent application filed in September 2009. Petitioner PRISM argued the challenged claims lacked written...more

10/7/2014 - Inter Partes Review Proceedings Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Prior Art Written Descriptions

Supreme Court Update: Four Important Decisions for IP

In the recent cases OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. and HIGHMARK INC. v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., the U.S. Supreme Court empowered district court judges to award attorney fees to prevailing...more

6/13/2014 - Akamai Technologies Attorney's Fees Exceptional Case Fee-Shifting Statutes Highmark v. Allcare Induced Infringement Limelight Limelight Networks Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Octane Fitness v. ICON Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents SCOTUS USPTO

Weak Patent Case? Think Twice Before Filing, In Light of Two 'Exceptional' SCOTUS Decisions

In light of these decisions, patentees with weak cases may think twice about filing, now that they face a credible risk of having to pay defendants’ attorney fees. By the same token, accused infringers with questionable...more

5/1/2014 - Attorney's Fees First Glance Highmark v. Allcare Legal Perspectives Octane Fitness v. ICON Patent Litigation Patent Trolls Patents SCOTUS

8 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1