Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more
2/17/2023
/ Article III ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Standing
Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...more
2/16/2023
/ Article III ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Lack of Jurisdiction ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standing ,
USPTO
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
2/8/2023
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Anticipation ,
Apple ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arbitrary and Capricious ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Article III ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Broadcom ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Production ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Consent Order ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covenant Not to Sue ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Doctrine of Equivalents ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Expert Testimony ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Federal Vacancies Reform Act ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Forum Selection ,
Google ,
Indefiniteness ,
Intel ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Joint Inventors ,
Jurisdiction ,
Lack of Jurisdiction ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
Motion to Amend ,
Motion to Terminate ,
Obviousness ,
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) ,
Parallel Proceedings ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 112 ,
Separation of Powers ,
Standing ,
Statutory Authority ,
Sua Sponte ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Testimony ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Trademark Application ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO ,
Vacated ,
Written Descriptions
RPX petitioned for inter partes review of ChanBond’s ’822 patent. The Board instituted the IPR and determined that RPX did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable. RPX appealed the final written decision to the...more
3/14/2019
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Estoppel ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Reputational Injury ,
Right To Appeal ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
Statutory Rights
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
2/28/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Adverse Judgments ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Burden of Proof ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Claim Construction ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventors ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Obviousness ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Partial Institution ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Private Property ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Right to a Jury ,
Right To Appeal ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Seventh Amendment ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Standing ,
Time-Barred Claims
By a majority of 7-2, the Supreme Court has ruled that inter partes review is a valid exercise of statutory authority vested in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,...more
4/25/2018
/ Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Due Process ,
Franchises ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Private Property ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
Takings Clause
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case that may have profound implications for U.S. patent law by abolishing inter partes reviews at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).
In Oil States Energy...more
6/13/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Certiorari ,
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 ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO