Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC

5445 Corporate Dr Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098, United States

  • (248) 641-1600
  • (248) 641-0270

PTAB Will Not Review Contract Issues Even if They Relate to Standing

Whether a Petitioner breached a contract, that limited its ability to challenge a patent, is an issue outside the purview of the PTAB, per a recent decision in Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC & The Abell Foundation, Inc.,…more
| Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

IPR Motions for Joinder are Common, But Not Automatic

Recent statistics show that motions for joinder are granted about 60% of the time. While parties can, therefore, expect a sympathetic ear regarding these motions, they are not always successful and it is worth noting the…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Myriad Disappointments for Biotech, but Hope Remains

CAFC extends the reach of subject-matter ineligibility under Myriad - Following Myriad Genetic’s 2013 loss at the Supreme Court (Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013), herein “Myriad…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

The December Sequel to the USPTO’s March Guidance

The much-anticipated subject-matter eligibility Guidance has finally been released by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) for public inspection and comment. Although the new Guidance is being circulated for public…more
| Intellectual Property

Rationale from Denied Ground Used By PTAB In Final Written Decision

Lost a challenge ground in the Board’s Decision to Institute? The Board has given some hope that such denied grounds may still of use in an IPR proceeding in McClinton Energy Group, LLC v. Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd.,…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Mistakes to Avoid

Failure to include within the petition an exhibit list with the exhibit number and a brief description of each exhibit. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e). SpaceCo Business Solutions, Inc. v. Moscovitch, IPR2015-00135, Paper 6 (November 19,…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Patentee Scorned

In SAP America, Inc. v. Arunacgalam, IPR2014-00413, Paper 23, and IPR2014-00414, Paper 21 (December 5, 2014), the Board sanctioned pro se patent owner for her unauthorized filings in which she makes “bald, unsubstantiated…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Board Declines to Terminate Reexamination

In Toyota Motor Corporation v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2013-00419 and IPR2013-00424m Paper 48 (December 12, 2014), the patent owner sought permission from the Board to file a motion to terminate an ex parte…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

PR Obviousness Challenge of Design Patent Denied

Through two years of inter partes review practice, only 8 petitions were filed that were directed to design patents (out of 1773 total petitions). Given this limited number of petitions, lessons are going to be difficult to…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Institution Decisions and Dispositions for December 11, 2014

Institution Decisions - In Fujitsu Semiconductor Limited v. ZOND, INC., IPR2014-00864, Paper 16, (December 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 18–34 (all the challenged claims) of U.S. Patent No…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

IPR Patent Owner Succeeds in Antedating Key Prior Art

A witness credibility battle erupted in Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., IPR2013-00131, where the Board found that Patent Owner antedated a key prior art reference…despite the fact that the inventor testified on…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Institution Decisions for December 9, 2014

In HTC Corporation v. E-WATCH, Inc., IPR2014-00989, Paper 6 (December 9, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6, 8, 10, 11, 13–18, 21–29, and 31 (“all of the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

BPCIA

BPCIA = Biologics Price Competition & Innovation Act Before Plaintiffs Can Invoke (jurisdiction they must ?le an) Application. No standing for declaratory judgment before biosimilar application - With the FDA’s…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

And Another Thing

In Pacific Market International, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC, IPR2014-00561, Paper 23, (December 2, 2014), the Board granted Petitioner’s motion to file a Supplemental Declaration of its expert, with additional reasons to combine the…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Pyrrhic Victory: IPR Petition Denied Because Claims Indefinite

Patent Owner won a Pyrrhic victory in Facebook v. TLI Communications, IPR2014-00566, wherein the Board denied the Petition, but for a reason that calls into question the future viability of the patent-in-suit. Namely, the Board…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Showing 1-15 of 427 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 29
Areas of Practice
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Virginia
Number of Attorneys

100+ Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.