News & Analysis as of

Evidence Expert Testimony Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

McDermott Will & Emery

Is Evidence of All Claimed Elements in Prior Art Enough? Not Without Motivation to Combine

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022: Split Panel Weighs General Skepticism Differently in Obviousness Inquiry

In a recent opinion by the Federal Circuit, Auris Health, Inc. v Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., Case 2021-1732, the panel split on the weight of general industry skepticism in an obviousness analysis and split on...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter: May 2022

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Editors' Introduction

Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed patent litigation. In its first...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Owner Tip #2 for Surviving An Instituted IPR: Don’t Swing for the Fences in IPR Depositions

As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Unsupported Expert Testimony Isn’t Enough to Establish Motivation to Combine

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding regarding motivation to combine based only on conclusory expert testimony was not supported by substantial...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - November 2019: The Board's Reliance on Expert's Conclusory Statements May Not Meet Substantial...

In a recent precedential decision, TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a pair of USPTO inter partes review proceedings that invalidated all claims of two related U.S. patents because “the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB: Lawyers Permitted to Confer with Witnesses to Prepare Redirect

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more

Jones Day

Precedential PTAB Order Addresses Witness Examination

Jones Day on

The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination. This...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Clarifies when Live Testimony at Oral Argument Is Permitted, and Motion to Amend Practice

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential four decisions addressing America Invents Act proceedings and issues of live testimony at oral argument and motions to amend under 35 USC § 316(d)....more

Jones Day

Precedential: Live Testimony Not Permitted Absent Prior Declaration

Jones Day on

In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing. In DePuy Synthes Products,...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Denies Request to Cross-Examine Experts Because Declarations Were Prepared for Other Proceedings and Were Not “Critical”...

In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Summer 2018

Fenwick & West LLP on

In This Issue - US Taxation of IP After Tax Reform - U.S. taxation of intellectual property has become astoundingly more complex after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new rules are so complex that the IRS and Treasury...more

Jones Day

No Genuine Issue of Fact Where Petitioner’s Claim Construction Is Wrong

Jones Day on

The PTAB’s recent decision denying rehearing in United Microelectronics Corp. v. Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, IPR2017-01513, Paper 10 (PTAB May 22, 2018) sheds light on the Board’s practice under 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c),...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Establishing Obviousness: A Fundamental Case of Evidence Over Arguments

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision declaring various claims of patent owner Thales’ U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 (“the ‘159 patent”) nonobvious. In doing so, the Federal...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Emphasizes that an Obviousness Analysis Based on Common Sense Must be Supported by Substantial Evidence and...

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Grants Late Motion to Amend, But Amended Claims Fail to Breathe Life into Patent

Addressing the standards for a motion to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted a motion to amend the claims in an IPR, but ultimately denied...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Expert Witness Testimony Normally Improper for Preliminary Response - B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Mag Aerospace Industries, LLC

McDermott Will & Emery on

Clarifying what is impermissible “new” evidence for a Patent Owner Preliminary Response in an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ordered that the patent owner’s exhibit, in the form...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Expert Testimony Must Be Supported by Evidence

Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B.V. - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final written decisions in 10 inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Although early IPR decisions generally have sustained...more

21 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide