On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071,...more
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy (D) and John Cornyn (R) introduced the Restoring the America Invents Act, a bill that would modify Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) procedures and facilitate...more
Hot out of the oven! In a rare move, a district court recently gave Domino’s a two-for-one deal on attorney’s fees. In Ameranth, Inc., v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., No. 12CV0733 DMS (WVG), 2021 WL 2550057 (S.D. Cal. June 21,...more
In United States v. Arthrex Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the pre-Arthrex Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regime of Administrative Patent Judge decisions being insulated from executive...more
6/24/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
It has now been more than seven months since the PTAB designated Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), as a precedential decision. Under this precedent, the PTAB applies a six factor,...more
In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and...more
The PTAB denied institution of a follow on petition filed five months after an initial petition by the same petitioner, even though the two petitions were directed to different claims. The Board found no persuasive...more
As Jones Day's PTAB Litigation Blog marks its 500th posting, Dave Cochran and Matt Johnson discuss current patent litigation developments, near-term trends, and how the PTAB is handling cases during the COVID-19 lock down....more
35 U.S.C. § 325(d) gives the PTAB discretion to deny a petition for inter partes review when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously before the Office – including during original examination,...more
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit has held that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") were in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S....more
The most persuasive IPR petitions offer fresh unpatentability theories never considered before. But petitions that simply repackage old issues often don’t gain traction. So, when you’re citing prior art that was before the...more
The Supreme Court ruled in Return Mail that a federal agency is not a "person" who may challenge an issued patent in inter partes review, post-grant review, or CBM review under the AIA.
In its 6–3 decision in Return Mail,...more
6/18/2019
/ Administrative Agencies ,
America Invents Act ,
Congressional Intent ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Government Entities ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Return Mail Inc v United States Postal Service ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPS
In Apple v. IXI IP, the PTAB affirmed that the issuance of a reexamination certificate adding additional claims to a challenged patent does not reset the one-year time bar under § 315(b) to file a petition for inter partes...more
Jones Day's Dave Cochran and Matt Johnson discuss recent developments in patent litigation and appeals, including the continuing importance of the PTAB as a jurisdiction of first choice for patent disputes in the United...more
Inter Partes review can only be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. 35 USC 311(b). Patents are easy to spot because they are issued by a governmental authority of some sort, but whether something...more
In Polygroup Limited MCO v. Willis Electric Company, Ltd., the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the PTAB’s findings of patentability in light of several obviousness arguments presented by the petitioner, concluding that...more
The PTAB may institute IPR proceedings only on the basis of certain prior art that is potentially invalidating under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute IPR on any other unpatentability grounds,...more
On August 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (“the ’831 Patent”) are not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Ericsson Inc. v....more
On July 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118 (“the ’118 Patent”) are anticipated.by U.S. Patent No. 4,148,330 (“Gnaga”) and Japanese Application No....more
On April 24, 2018, in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confronts inter partes reviews under the America Invents Act. The...more
6/18/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Chevron Deference ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS
The recent PTAB order in IPR2017-01427 is a cautionary tale for petitioners considering multiple IPRs against a single patent. On May 11, 2017, Facebook and WhatsApp filed the ’1427 IPR petition challenging claims 1-8 of U.S....more
The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May 22, 2018) sheds light on the Board’s practice under 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c),...more
On April 2, 2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision in Fox Factory finding that the petitioner failed to carry its burden in showing the instituted claims were unpatentable as obvious. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...more
4/11/2018
/ Claim Construction ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Graham Factors ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Property Owners ,
Standard of Review
An expert asserting that a patent claim reciting different features than the prior art is nonetheless “equivalent” to the prior art must address and account for the recited limitations head-on, or otherwise lose persuasive...more
2/19/2018
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Evidentiary Hearings ,
Expert Testimony ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Software Patents
In Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., Nos. 2016-2080, -2082, -2083, 2017 WL 6613262 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2017), a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that Microsoft failed to...more