News & Analysis as of

Covered Business Method Proceedings

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in September 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued 33 IPR and CBM Final Written Decisions in September, cancelling 501 (87.28%) instituted claims while declining to cancel 53 (9.23%) instituted claims. Patent owners conceded 20...more

Expanded Panel Ratifies Post-Petition Disclaimer As Legitimate CBM Eligibility Strategy

by Jones Day on

An expanded panel at the PTAB has found that post-Petition claim cancellation is a legitimate strategy for patent owners to avoid CBM jurisdiction. In deciding petitioner’s Institution Decision Rehearing Request in Facebook,...more

In re Stepan Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gets most of its attention (judicial and otherwise) regarding its decisions in inter partes review and covered business method proceedings. But the Board also has responsibility for...more

PTAB Denies Institution of CBM Review for Lack of Standing in view of Covenant Not to Sue

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB denied institution of Covered Business Method (CBM) Review, finding that the parties’ license agreement and covenant not to sue removed any “imminent” threat of an infringement suit. MasterCard International Inc., v....more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – September 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through September 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 243 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 180 (74.07%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 27...more

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Activity in the First Five Years+

by Knobbe Martens on

September 16, 2017 marked five years since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was created. Some of the notable statistics and trends of the previous 5 years are shown here....more

Preemption is “Part and Parcel” of the §101; But Lack of Preemption Does Not Necessarily Establish Patentability

In Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, [2016-1502] (August 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that the US Postal Service had standing to challenge Return Mails patents in an CBMR, and...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – August 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through August 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 236 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 175 (74.15%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 25...more

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in June 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued 50 Final Written Decisions in June. It was a relatively difficult month for patent owners, with the Board cancelling 555 (80.32%) of the instituted claims while declining to cancel...more

Interplay Between “Technological Invention” and “Significantly More” in PTAB CBM Review

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 18, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted a covered business method (“CBM”) patent review for U.S. Patent No. 8,955,029 (“the ’029 patent”) on grounds of...more

Cloud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems, Inc. (PTAB 2017)

Petitioner Cloud9 requested covered business method (CBM) review of IPC's U.S. Patent No. 8,189,566 before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Due to the claims of the '566 patent not reciting a financial element, the...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – July 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through July 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 224 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 168 (75%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 22 (9.82%)...more

IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in May 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued 41 Final Written Decisions in May. It was a relatively patentee-friendly month, with the Board cancelling 269 (48.04%) of the instituted claims while declining to cancel 287 (51.25%)...more

Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Securing Financing Patent Ineligible

by Knobbe Martens on

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in a covered business method review proceeding that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,950,807 for providing...more

STRONGER Patents Act Proposes Substantial Changes to AIA Trial Proceedings

On September 21, 2017, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced the STRONGER Patents Act of 2017 in the Senate. STRONGER is an acronym for “Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience.” The...more

Supreme Court’s Ruling on AIA Patent Reviews Could Reverberate Across Patent Law Landscape

Supreme Court’s Ruling on AIA Patent Reviews Could Reverberate Across Patent Law Landscape - Key Takeaways - The impact of the Court’s grant of Oil States’s petition for certiorari, and their subsequent decision on...more

Patent Holders Can Evade CBM by Disclaiming CBM Claims

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing petitioner’s urging that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) import the district court “time of filing” rule to institution decisions for covered business method (CBM) reviews, the PTAB once again held that...more

Supreme Court to Decide the Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

In a move that could drastically change the patent law landscape, the United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, No. 16-712, to answer the question...more

Earthquake Coming? Supreme Court to Weigh Constitutionality of IPRs (2nd Article)

On June 12, the Supreme Court took certiorari on probably the biggest IPR case possible: a case challenging the constitutionality of IPRs on separation-of-powers and seventh amendment grounds. This comes just a few weeks...more

Earthquake Coming? Supreme Court to Weigh Constitutionality of IPRs

It’s no secret that patentees have been generally unhappy with both the process and outcomes of AIA reviews. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the entire AIA review system will be eliminated on...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - June 2017

by WilmerHale on

Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. (No. 2016-2107, -2221, 6/19/17) (Moore, Schall, Hughes) Moore, J. Affirming dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction....more

Supreme Court to Determine the Future of the PTAB’s Post-Grant Reviews

by Latham & Watkins LLP on

The key question for the Court is whether an agency or only an Article III court may cancel an issued patent - The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No....more

Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of AIA Inter Partes Review Proceedings

by Snell & Wilmer on

The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings conducted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the America Invents Act. The Court’s...more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether IPRs Are Unconstitutional

by Knobbe Martens on

The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether inter partes review – an adversarial process used by the Patent Office to determine the validity of existing patents – is unconstitutional in Oil...more

High Court to Address Constitutionality of Inter Partes Reviews

On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, No. 16-712 (U.S. June 12, 2017) granted certiorari to decide next term if certain American Invents Act (AIA) review proceedings,...more

265 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 11
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.