Inter Partes Reexamination

News & Analysis as of

Patent Office Updates Rules for Post-Grant Proceeding Duty of Candor

The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently amended 37 C.F.R. § 42.11 to include a certification requirement similar to that of Rule 11. Section 42.11 prescribes the duty of candor owed to the Patent Office. As...more

In Determining Whether to Apply Intervening Rights, Courts Must Account for Differences Between Claim Construction Standards -...

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again reversed a district court’s summary judgment determination (on remand) that liability was precluded by intervening rights and found that district courts must account for...more

Look at the Context, Sometimes “A” means “A”

In In re Varma, [2015-1502, -1667] (March 10, 2016) the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s cancellation of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 in two inter partes reexamination proceedings. in one of the proceedings, the...more

Re-Exam Claiming Opposite Enantiomer Not Enough to Invalidate Patent (Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., (Fed. Cir....

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding the five asserted patents. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 805 F.3d 1112, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....more

New Party Has No Cause of Action to Appeal PTAB Decision (Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp.)

Addressing the statutory cause of action requirement to appeal a reexamination decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal, finding that the appellant was not a third-party requester of the...more

Federal Circuit Backs Finding of Inequitable Conduct in Reexamination of Prosthetics Patent

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court’s awarding of attorneys’ fees to Alps South (Alps) based on inequitable conduct by Ohio Willow Wood (OWW) during reexamination of its patent for gel-coated, cushioned socks...more

Specific Specifications: Takeaways From Inphi Patent Case

The patent attorney often faces the problem that broad claims for a class can be rejected when prior art surfaces for one of the members of the class. One strategy is to exclude those members of the class found in the prior...more

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Despite Amendments during Reexamination, Intervening Rights Not Found - On February 10, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a case captioned Convolve, Inc., and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Compaq...more

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

48 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.
×