Inter Partes Reexamination

News & Analysis as of

Asset Transferee Cannot Appeal Reexamination

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal in Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp., because the appellant was not a “third-party requester” dissatisfied with the final decision in an inter partes...more

Inphi v. Netlist: Alternative Features Satisfy the Patent Written Description Requirement for a Negative Claim Limitation

It can be tricky to evaluate written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for negative claim limitations since the support may amount to the absence of a feature from an invention that is described positively with...more

Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Many patent attorneys have a visceral, disapproving reaction to negative claim limitations -- elements that specify what a claim does not cover. While a line of Federal Circuit cases has established that negative limitations...more

No Need to Accentuate the Positive — Eliminate the Negative

In Inphi Corporation v, Netlist, Inc., [2015-1179] (November 13, 3015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI decision affirming the examiner’s final decision declining to reject claims amended during inter partes...more

Declarations from Inventors of Prior Art Could Create Genuine Dispute over Motivation to Combine - Ivera Medical Corp. v. Hospira,...

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity because plaintiff patentee established a genuine issue of...more

District Court Denies Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") Where Third Parties Filed IPRs and Defendants...

In this patent infringement case, Plaintiff Signal IP, Inc. ("Signal") alleged that Defendants Ford Motor Company ("Ford") and Fiat Chrysler US LLC ("FCA") (collectively "Defendants") infringed upon six of patents. The...more

Proposed Legislation Could Change the Way Motions to Amend IPR and PGR Claims Are Handled

Last week, a proposal was made in the United States Senate to utilize the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) reexamination process to examine amended claims proposed during an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)...more

Attorney Fees for Post-Grant Patent Challenge Proceedings Before the USPTO May Be Recoverable in Exceptional Cases Under 35 U.S.C....

Parties accused of patent infringement are turning more and more to post-grant challenge proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as a faster and cheaper means for invalidating the asserted...more

Can an Attorneys’ Fee Award Include IPR Fees?

In Deep Sky Software, Inc., v. Southwest Airlines Co., 10-cv-1234-CAB (S.D. Cal. August 19, 2015), Southwest sought $359,733.17 in attorneys’ under fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after Deep Sky’s U.S. Patent No. 6,738,770 was...more

District Court Denies Stay Based on Inter Partes Review ("IPR") Where Less than 25% of Claims at Issue were Subject to IPR

Defendants HTC America, Inc., HTC Corporation, AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco Partnership, Sprint Spectrum L.P., Kyocera Corporation, Boost Mobile, T-Mobile USA, Inc. and ZTE (USA), Inc. filed a motion to stay pending resolution...more

PTAB in Reexamination Should Have At Least Acknowledged Prior Court Claim Construction

In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, [2014-1123], (August 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision affirming the rejection of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876, in a reexamination proceeding. The...more

Poor Litigation Conduct by Prevailing Party Not Enough to Obviate Exceptional-Case Doctrine - Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati...

Addressing the degree to which litigation conduct can preclude the recovery of fees under 35 U.S. C. § 285, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the denial of a fee award, finding that sloppy litigation...more

Federal Circuit Review | July 2015

Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments Insufficient To Confer Retroactive Standing - In ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD CO., Appeal Nos. 2013-1452, 2013-1488, 2014-1147, and 2014-1426, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of a...more

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more

Joint Defendants Succeed on Motion to Stay Pending Reexam

For defendants in patent infringement cases, moving to stay the case pending the outcome of a concurrent U.S. Patent Office reexamination proceeding is a fairly common building block that has the potential to streamline or...more

Post-grant proceedings after the America Invents Act

The America Invents Act (AIA) was passed several years ago. One of the biggest changes it made to the patent landscape was the options for modifying a patent after it was granted by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Prior...more

IP Newsflash - December 2014: DISTRICT COURT CASES: A Contrary Construction from Reexamination Is No Basis to Reconsider a...

On December 10, 2014, the Southern District of New York denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a 2006 claim construction ruling and vacate a related summary judgment order. Plaintiff requested the relief following a contrary...more

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2014)

One of the most iconic inventions of the biotechnology era is the "Harvard Oncomouse" invented by Philip Leder and Timothy Stewart in the early 1980's. One of the first transgenic mice transformed with DNA encoding something...more

Re-examination now an option for challenging New Zealand patents and applications

New Zealand has new patent legislation (Patents Act 2013; the ‘new law’) which came into effect on 13 September 2014. The previous legislation (Patents Act 1953; the ‘old law’) did not allow for re-examination of accepted...more

Withholding A Court's Order From the USPTO in A Co-Pending Reexamination May Render A Patent Unenforceable in Litigation

In Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronic North America Corporation, et al., the Philips Defendants moved for leave to amend their answer to add a defense of inequitable conduct based on Masimo's alleged inequitable conduct...more

IP Newsflash - September 2014 #3

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction to Decide Non-Patent Causes of Action That Involves a Substantial, Non-Hypothetical Disputed Patent Law Issue - On September 16, 2014, a Federal Circuit...more

IP Newsflash - August 2014 #3

Federal Circuit Vacates Injunction and Contempt Order After Reexamination Finds At-Issue Claims Invalid - On July 25, the Federal Circuit vacated an injunction and $18 million civil contempt fine in a patent...more

General Conclusions About Basic Knowledge or Common Sense Are Insufficient for Core Factual Findings

K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC - Addressing whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) properly refused to reject as obvious a claim calling for a multi-prong electrical connection, the U.S. Court of...more

GENERICally Speaking - Vol. 4, No. 1

The Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Life Sciences practice groups at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. are pleased to offer the latest edition of their quarterly publication regarding ANDA patent litigation issues and the...more

Reference with Missing Pages May Be Used in Reexamination - In re Enhanced Security Research, LLC

Addressing the issue of whether, in a patent reexamination, a reference with missing pages may be submitted and relied upon by the patent examiner in rejecting patent claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

40 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

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

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×