Exploring Procedural Justice | Judge Steve Leben | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Handling Post-Conviction Death Penalty Cases Pro Bono | McKenzie Edwards | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Inside the Fourth Court of Appeals’ Clerk’s Office | Michael Cruz | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Supersedeas and Other Recent Rule Changes | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Supreme Court Miniseries: Tribal Rights in the 21st Century
SDNY Chooses “Time Approach” to Calculating Lease Termination Damages Collectible Against a Bankrupt Estate
AGG Talks: Home Health & Hospice - Reimbursement Audits and Appeals
After ALJ: Options and Opportunities in the Face of an Unfavorable ALJ Decision
Understanding the SCOTUS Shadow Docket | Steve Vladeck | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast: The Legal Battle Over Mifepristone - Diagnosing Health Care
Checking in On the 88th Texas Legislature | Jerry Bullard | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Law Brief®: Rich Schoenstein and New York State Senator Luis Sepúlveda Discuss The Chief Judge Controversy
Appellate Justice for Domestic Violence Survivors
Jury Charges and Oral Argument | David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Evolution of Texas Appellate Practice| David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast: California Employment News - Time to Do Away With Rounding Policies
Two Federal Courts Deal Blow to Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Program: A Close Look at the Decisions
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
An Inside Look as a Juror - FCRA Focus Podcast
Reflections on 100 Episodes | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld, Appeal No. 2020-2102 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2022)- In an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the ex parte reexamination...more
Facebook filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against claims 1–8 of Uniloc 2017 LLC’s patent on Voice over Internet Protocol. Meanwhile, an IPR proceeding was already pending on claims 1–6 and 8 of the same patent,...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
In Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), the Supreme Court held that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to apply the time bar of 35 U.S.C....more
The question of whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has any right to examine a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review or post...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On September 4, 2020, the Federal Circuit modified and reissued its March 18, 2020 Facebook v. Windy City opinion to address the Supreme Court’s intervening April 20, 2020 Thryv v. Click-to-Call opinion...more
Last week was September Court week, marking the unofficial end of summer for Federal Circuit practitioners. The Court issued a total of 25 decisions, including 8 Rule 36 summary affirmances in cases argued last week, as well...more
At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more
In an appeal from the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Security People’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) suit challenging the constitutionality of inter partes...more
In the first half of 2020, several notable decisions further shaped the course of patent law, with rulings from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit impacting PTAB proceedings, as described below...more
In the wake of its six-week-old decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States has now granted certiorari in an appeal of another case arising from a Federal Circuit appeal...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that the discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board” or “PTAB”) to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”), despite challenges to its timeliness,...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely filed could not be appealed. In a...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
Addressing the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) application of the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Supreme...more
Despite the current environment of social distancing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has continued full operations while eliminating face-to-face interactions. For example, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Any person may challenge the validity of a U.S. patent on the basis that previously issued patents or publications render the patent’s claims invalid as being anticipated by the prior art or obvious in view of the prior art,...more
“I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong,” Samuel Goldwyn once said, and the same is true for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when it comes to determining the timeliness of inter...more
On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, No. 18-916 (S. Ct. Apr. 20, 2020), finding that the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is...more
This week, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the AIA’s “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs, L.P., No. 18-916, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr....more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies LP, the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions regarding the time limit for filing inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) are not subject to...more
The Decision. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review (IPR) are not appealable, even if such institution decisions may...more
Addressing the scope of review of the PTAB’s application of the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an IPR proceeding, the US Supreme Court held that the PTAB’s application of the time bar...more
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Thryv, Fka Dex Media v. Click-To-Call Techs., No. 18-916, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2406 (2020), held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("Board") decision...more
- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, that the PTAB’s application of the one-year time limit for petitions for inter partes review, set out in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), is not subject to...more