News & Analysis as of

PTAB Applies Balancing Test in Deciding Motions to Seal Evidence

Search Am., Inc. v. TransUnion Intelligence, LLC - In an recent covered business method (CBM) patent review proceeding, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied the parties’...more

Independent Corroboration Required To Prove Conception

Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc. - Addressing the requirements for antedating prior art, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled all claims of a challenged patent unpatentable,...more

Warning: No Sandbagging Experimental Evidence

Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has explained that an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner should fully support...more

Timeliness – The Devil Is in the Details (a.k.a. Rules)

GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc. - In an order issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the Board expunged exhibits from the records of five related cases on the basis of...more

Nexium District Court Takes Pioneering Approach to Preliminary Jury Charge

How does a court explain the complicated area of law at the intersection of patent settlements and antitrust law to a group of lay-jurors in the wake of Actavis? The district court’s approach to preliminary jury instructions...more

“Why, I declare” … Proper Use of Evidentiary Declarations under New (Post-AIA) Rule 37 C.F.R. 1.130

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law on September 16, 2011. While the AIA alters U.S. patent practice in several ways, perhaps the most significant change brought about by the law is the switch from a...more

Rare Grant (in Part) of an IPR Motion to Exclude

Motions to Exclude Evidence have been one of the features of inter partes review practice that have, to date, had a less significant effect than expected. Very few motions have been granted, largely because the Board...more

No Surprises At Hearing; Demonstratives Must Only Contain Evidence of Record

In TriVascular, Inc. v. Shaun Samuels, IPR2013-00493, Paper 39 (September 2, 2014) the Board sustained a number of objections to the patent owner’s demonstrative exhibits....more

You have to Object to Exclude

In K40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort Inc., IPR2013-00203, Paper 46 (August 27, 2014), the Board denied the patent owner’s motion to exclude. The Board first review the proper procedure for objecting to, and moving to exclude,...more

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

Harman v. Honeywell International

The Supreme Court of Virginia’s recent opinion in Harman v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 130627 (June 5, 2014) contains a wealth of analysis on a number of evidentiary rules that every trial lawyer will likely...more

Invalidity Expert Excluded Where Expert Failed to Conduct a Proper Written Description Analysis

Plaintiff Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("TT") moved to strike the invalidity expert report of the defendant, CQG. TT made two arguments its motion: " that Dr. Mellor failed to conduct a proper written description...more

IP Newsflash - May 2014

Supplemental Information Containing Petitioner’s Statements Allowed in IPR - A PTAB panel has granted a patent owner’s (owner) motion to submit supplemental information in an inter partes review (IPR). A motion to...more

IP Newsflash - May 2014

Improper Submission of New Evidence Undermines Patent Challenge - In its final written decision, a PTAB panel granted a patent owner’s (owner) motion to exclude evidence submitted by a petitioner in support of its...more

On Remand, Federal Circuit Comes Around to Supreme Court’s Way of Thinking

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. - On a remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of the sufficiency of infringement evidence, affirmed a district...more

Patentee Blindsided By Partially Uncorroborated Evidence

Evidence of what occurred over 15 years ago was ultimately accepted despite being only partially corroborated. As a result, many of the claims from Damorgold’s patent have been held invalid for lack of novelty based on that...more

Evidence in Support of Petition for Venue Transfer Must Be Sufficiently Specific - In re Apple Inc.; In re Barnes & Noble

In two decisions from identical panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus petitions seeking to direct two district courts to vacate their denials of petitioners’ motions to transfer their...more

PersonalWeb v. Google: Duty to Preserve Emails Began When Patent Was Acquired

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC ("PersonalWeb") filed a patent infringement action against Google for infringement of its "Truenames" patents. Google filed a motion for sanctions based on a contention that PersonalWeb...more

Board Explains Process for Correcting Exhibits to a Petition

In an Order for the Conduct of Proceedings in GSI Technology, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, [IPR2014-00202], Paper 8 (February 27, 2014), the Board explained the process for correcting an Exhibit under 37 C.F.R....more

Supreme Court’s Opinion Reiterates Principle that Patent Holders Bear Burden of Proof in Infringement Actions

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision issued on January 22, 2014, held that the burden of proof in patent infringement actions falls upon the patentee, regardless of whether the patentee is the moving party in the...more

District Court Refuses to Vacate Sanctions Ruling for Spoliation after Settlement

Digital-Vending Services International, LLC ("Digital-Vending") filed a patent infringement action against The University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc. ("Defendants"). During the course of the litigation, the...more

Playing Fast and Loose With Corroborating Evidence: Patent Advocacy Inequitable Conduct

Patent litigation often involves the assertion of prior art anticipation and obviousness defenses. U.S. patents are presumed valid, so a defendant seeking to overcome this presumption must persuade the fact-finder of a...more

Board Will Not Fill In Evidentiary Gaps in Inter Partes Review Petition

In a victory for Patent Owner, Zerto was unable to get any of 13 challenged claims of an EMC Israel Development Center patent into a trial for inter partes review, in Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Israel Development Center, Ltd.,...more

Supreme Court Rules That Patent Owner Always Bears the Burden of Proof on Patent Infringement

In a nine to zero decision authored by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit and held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that the...more

“Inherency Requires More Than Probabilities” - Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n

Addressing whether an essential claim limitation is inherently present in a prior art reference for purposes of an anticipation analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling out of the U.S....more

47 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2