Recently, Cloudflare Inc. succeeded in convincing the PTAB to institute in IPR2021-00969 against a Sable Network, Inc.’s patent directed toward data flow. While the institution itself is not out of the ordinary—the...more
12/8/2021
/ Crowdsourcing ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Portfolios ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
On December 7, 2020, the PTAB granted Activ Financial Systems, Inc.’s (“Activ”) petition for inter partes review of claim 43 and 44 of IP Reservoir LLC’s (“IP Reservoir”) U.S. Patent No. 10,062,115 (the ’115 Patent), directed...more
Due to the relatively low number of post-grant reviews (“PGR”) filed to date, not many district courts have spoken on the scope of PGR estoppel. In GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-00071 (E.D. Texas), Magistrate Judge...more
9/4/2020
/ Estoppel ,
Motion To Strike ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Partial Summary Judgments ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101
To institute an inter partes review (IPR), the petition requesting the proceeding must be filed within one year of the petitioner or real party in interest (RPI) receiving a complaint alleging patent infringement. 35 U.S.C. §...more
Shortly before the evidentiary hearing, ALJ Lord granted Complainant’s motion in limine and excluded certain testimony in the witness statement of Respondents’ expert as precluded by her ground rules governing expert...more
6/24/2019
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Discovery ,
Evidentiary Hearings ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 337 ,
Testimony ,
Written Descriptions
The Situation: In a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the claims recite oxymorphone with less than 0.001% of an impurity called 14-hydroxymorphinone. The prior art includes confidential communications from the FDA to oxymorphone...more
5/31/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Confidential Communications ,
Derivation Proceeding ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Hatch-Waxman ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 102
In In re Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1058 (ITC October 2, 2018, Order), Administrative Law Judge Cheney ruled that even if a respondent is estopped from raising certain invalidity...more
Any person or entity may file an IPR proceeding to invalidate a patent, regardless of whether it faces a specific threat of infringement. An adverse decision in an IPR proceeding is appealable only to the Federal Circuit....more
In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Shaw denied in part the Respondents’ Motion to Supplement their Notice of Prior Art. In re Certain Strontium-Rubidium Radioisotope Infusion Systems, And Components Thereof Including...more
On July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that Petitioner GoPro, Inc. failed to establish the public availability of an alleged prior art printed publication. GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, __...more
By Dave Maiorana By now, most PTAB practitioners are familiar with 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which gives the Board the authority to deny institution of a post-grant proceeding because the same or substantially the same prior art or...more
In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Lord denied Respondents CSL Behring LLC, CSL Behring GMBH, and CSL Behring Recombinant Facility AG (“CSL Behring”) motion to compel discovery from Complainants Bioverativ Inc.,...more
1/2/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Discovery ,
Inequitable Conduct ,
Motion to Compel ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 337 ,
USPTO
The PTAB’s practice of partially instituting IPRs has been in the news lately, with Jones Day recently arguing against that practice at the Supreme Court on behalf of the SAS Institute (“SAS”). On December 5, 2017, the week...more
In August 2016, Google petitioned for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 (owned by IXI Mobile), asserting that claims 1–10 are unpatentable. In March 2017, the PTAB instituted the IPR as to claims 1–5, but...more
As we have previously discussed (on February 1, March 1, March 30, and May 19), reliance on secondary considerations of non-obviousness has been hit or miss for patent owners trying to convince PTAB panels that the secondary...more
It is not always possible for a party seeking to challenge a patent in an IPR to find prior art patents or printed publications that the USPTO has not already considered. Often the best available prior art comes from the...more
Certain Access Control Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1016 (May 31, 2017), is a good lesson in covering all your bases. Relying on a non-infringement decision by ALJ Pender, respondents assumed that they did...more
6/7/2017
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Anticipatory Reference ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Noninfringement ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Summary Judgment
We have previously reported (on February 1, on March 1, and on March 30) how patent owners have seen a mixed bag of results in trying to convince PTAB panels that secondary considerations of non-obviousness were sufficient to...more