In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
False Claims Act Insights - Railroaded! How to Approach the Twin Tracks of Parallel Proceedings
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 334: Listen and Learn -- Standards of Review (Con Law)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 160: Listen and Learn -- Standards of Review (Con Law)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 295: Listen and Learn -- Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 117: Listen and Learn -- Due Process and Equal Protection (Con Law)
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Day 11 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-the Fair Process Doctrine
Webinar: Investigating and Resolving Sexual Assaults on Campus
Former Solicitor General Ted Olson Discusses 2013's Biggest Supreme Court Case—His.
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...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
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated several Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions as violating due process and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), referencing the parties’ inability to respond...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 35 USC § 314(d) did not bar its review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that a petitioner was not estopped from maintaining inter partes review (IPR)...more
Security People lost an inter partes review (IPR) and appealed to the Federal Circuit. It lost that appeal and was denied certiorari at the Supreme Court. Security People never raised constitutional arguments in any of these...more
FanDuel petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of certain claims of Interactive Games’ patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and found all but dependent claim 6 to be unpatentable as obvious. ...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
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. v. IANCU - Before Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - Summary: Congress foreclosed the possibility of...more
Since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inception, it has faced questions regarding its constitutionality. This past year was no different. In 2019, aggrieved patent owners raised numerous constitutional challenges...more
On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that retroactive application of IPR (inter partes review) proceedings to pre-AIA (America Invents Act) patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment (Celgene...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) exceeded its authority and deprived the patent owner of due process by belatedly considering a non-instituted ground in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
The 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) provided a variety of new ways to administratively challenge patents, including the now widely used inter partes review (“IPR”) procedure. In two recent appeals of IPR decisions, Genentech...more
Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC (“Dell II”), No. 2017-1101 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) - On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the Board’s refusal to consider new arguments that had been made...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both...more
In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more
On May 8, 2017, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., 15-1739, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) claim constructions in a non-precedential decision....more
On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part....more
The saga of the first-filed IPR petition (IPR2012-00001) came to a close today when the Supreme Court decided the Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee case. We have been following this case ever since the PTAB issued its...more
Addressing for the first time the issue of whether the same panel of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may both institute an inter partes review (IPR) and finally decide its merits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for...more