News & Analysis as of

Final Written Decisions Vacated Remand

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

2023 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: 2023 PTAB Case Highlights

Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more

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

Federal Circuit IP Appeals: Summaries of Key 2023 Decisions (8th Edition): Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950 (Fed....

Axonics petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by Medtronic. The challenged claims relate to a neurostimulation lead and a method for implanting and anchoring the lead. The patents’ “Field of the Invention” section states...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Identifying Protocols by Name May Disclose Sufficient Structure for Computer-Implemented Means-Plus-Function Limitations

In Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al., Nos. 22-1493, 22-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2023), Sierra Wireless challenged claims 1-10 of Sisvel’s U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 (“the ’561 patent”) in an inter partes review....more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Decision Based on an Overly Narrow Claim Construction

In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., 34 F.4th 1081...

Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, 48 F.4th 1365...

NVIDIA petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by Polaris. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable. Polaris appealed. While on appeal, the final written decisions in those IPRs were vacated and the proceedings were...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards,...

Atlanta Gas petitioned for inter partes review of Bennett’s ’029 patent. The Board initially rejected Bennett’s argument that Atlanta Gas was time barred from petitioning for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and...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.

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Seismic Shifts in §102 and...

In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued four opinions regarding US design patents— two precedential opinions and two unprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions, In re SurgiSil and Campbell...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions: Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., 6 F.4th 1256 (Fed....

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

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

2021 Design Patents Year in Review: Analysis and Trends

This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions: Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th...

Campbell Soup Co. petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Gamon Plus, Inc.’s design patents D612,646 and D621,645. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) instituted the IPR and determined that Campbell Soup did not...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[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

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021: Can Forum Selection Clauses Prohibit IPRs?

New Vision Gamingi touches on an interesting forum-selection issue currently before the Federal Circuit in at least one other case. The issue is the enforceability of a forum-selection clause in an agreement between parties...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2021

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.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et....

Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more

Jones Day

Estoppel Estopped for Remanded Claims

Jones Day on

In General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00007-RWS, ECF No. 128 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to strike invalidity defenses as barred by IPR estoppel for...more

Knobbe Martens

Concrete Plans Establish Standing for IPR Appeals

Knobbe Martens on

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - October 2020: Joinder Petitioner Has Different § 315(e)(2) Estoppel Than Original Petitioner

In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s holding that joinder petitioner Hewlett Packard (“HP”) (1) could have tried to raise new grounds in its...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2020

Knobbe Martens on

Unconstitutionally Appointed Judges Cannot Decide Ex Parte Appeals - In In Re Boloro Global Limited, Appeal No. 19-2349, When administrative patent judges are unconstitutionally appointed, their decisions in ex...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - August 2020: Federal Circuit Remands Because PTAB Failed to Explain How Its Decision Addressed the...

In Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, Judge Stoll held that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “[the Federal Circuit’s] review of a patentability determination is confined to ‘the grounds upon which the Board actually...more

Jones Day

SCOTUS Says “Fresenius/Simmons Preclusion Principle” Stays Alive

Jones Day on

The Supreme Court recently denied Chrimar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar)’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s “Fresenius/Simmons preclusion principle,” under which Chrimar’s district court victory...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Cannot Shortcut the Two-Step Obviousness Analysis

Knobbe Martens on

FITBIT, INC. v. VALENCELL, INC. Before Newman, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Notwithstanding its rejection of the Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, the PTAB may not end an...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - May 2020

Knobbe Martens on

IPR Petitioners May Not Raise Appointments Clause Challenges Under Arthrex - In CIENA CORPORATION v. OYSTER OPTICS, LLC, Appeal No. 19-2117, affirmatively petitioning for IPR waived the petitioner’s Appointments Clause...more

Blank Rome LLP

PTAB Administratively Holds in Abeyance More Than 100 Cases Remanded Due to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Blank Rome LLP on

On May 1, 2020, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a General Order administratively holding in abeyance all cases remanded from the United States Court of Appeals for...more

64 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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