Inter Partes Review Proceedings

News & Analysis as of

Petitioners Must Present Sufficient Evidence to Establish Inherency

Last Friday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied four Sandoz Inc. petitions for instituting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. 8,455,524 (IPR2015-00005), U.S. 7,612,102 (IPR2015-00006), U.S. 7,659,290...more

Benefits of Showing Discovery as “Routine” Instead of “Additional”

The PTAB issued an order granting in part a request for discovery by an IPR petitioner. IPR2014-00727 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. ...more

Strategies for Pharma Companies Facing Bass-Like Challenges in IPR Proceedings

Kyle Bass is at it again. On April 20, 2015, Bass filed his sixth inter partes review (IPR) Petition against a patent covering Pharmacyclics, Inc.’s cancer drug, IMBRUVICA®. Then, on April 22, 2015, Bass filed his seventh IPR...more

30 Months of IPR Practice – By the Numbers

UntitledWelcome to Volume 9 of our IPR-PGR Report. After 30 months of IPR practice, some trends are taking shape. Overall, the percentage of petitions put into trial has gradually decreased, down to 76% this quarter, from a...more

Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB? [Video]

Two years after the creation of the America Invents Act post-grant proceedings, many patent owners are facing an uphill battle when attempting to defend their intellectual property before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

District Court Dismisses Action after Patent Is Transferred to President of Company

After Plaintiff Pi-Net International, Inc. ("Pi-Net") brought suit against Defendants Focus Business Bank and Bridge Bank, N.A. for patent infringement, the Patent and Trademark Office initiated an Inter Partes Review ("IPR")...more

Boston Scientific Files Second IPR Petition Against UAB Patent

Boston Scientific Corporation (“Boston Scientific”) filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 10, 2015 requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,563 (“the ’563 Patent”). The petition...more

Live Testimony for Fact Witness Can Be Appropriate at IPR Oral Hearing

With the Patent Office considering changes to inter partes review practice to potentially increase the use of live testimony at oral hearings, it is worth reviewing the first case in which the Board allowed such live...more

First IPR Design Patent Decision Affirmed by Federal Circuit

In the first inter partes review of a design patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision that the only claim was unpatentable. Design patent D617,465 on a drinking cup was the...more

Stricter Standing for Inter Partes Review?

Neither the statutes nor the regulations governing Inter Partes Review (IPR) require the party challenging the patent to have been charged with infringement, or even to establish any interest in practicing the claimed subject...more

Toward a Bullet-Proof Petition – Motivation to Combine

While 8 out of 10 Petitions seeking inter partes review are granted by the PTAB, there remain several key errors that unsuccessful Petitioners make. Among them is the failure to provide sufficient factual basis for a...more

New procedures available for invalidating patents before the USPTO

Business executives have long struggled with whether to defend a patent infringement suit in court, try to settle the dispute for less than the cost/risk of defending it, or seek to deal with the problem patent by requesting...more

Which Party Should File Motion to Seal in Inter Partes Review?

The PTAB has taken seriously the importance of public accessibility to information underlying an inter partes review proceeding. As such, motions to seal have been trickier to navigate than might have been expected. ...more

Newsletter: March 2015

In This Issue: - Main Article: .. Inter Partes Review and the ITC: The Benefits and Risks of Filing IPR on Patents Asserted in an ITC Investigation - Noted With Interest: .. Securities Act Claims...more

Schedule Is Extended On Motion Of Intervenor

A non-party intervenor acquired the patents-in-suit after the complaint was filed and a scheduling order was entered in this action. ...more

Navigating Protective Order and Prosecution Bar Issues in BPCIA Litigation

Protective orders preventing litigation counsel from participating in the prosecution of litigation-related patents are commonplace. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), for example, provides a...more

Pharmaceutical Filings on the Upswing as Power of IPR Becomes More Well-Known

The Wall Street Journal has taken note of recent IPR filings by hedge fund manager Kyle Bass against certain pharmaceutical patent portfolios. Our Matt Cutler was quoted in one of the articles. ...more

Board Signals Willingness to Admit Questionable Evidence in Close Cases - Fujian Newland Computer Co., Ltd., v. Hand Held Prods.,...

Addressing the standard for admitting evidence in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied three motions to exclude as part of...more

Prior Art Must Criticize or Otherwise Disparage the Claimed Solution to Constitute a Teaching Away - PNY Techs., Inc., v. Phison...

Addressing the question of whether claims covering a particular type of USB plug would have been obvious, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found the claims to be unpatentable, concluding that while one...more

Creative Interpretation of Abandonment Cannot Save Patent - Hyundai Motor Co. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC

Addressing a request for adverse judgment by the patent owner, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied patent owner’s request, finding that the patent owner...more

Antedating by Third-Party Reduction to Practice Not Enough—Conception Needed - Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc.

In its decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a design patent related to a slow cooker buffet server, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) ruled that the...more

Where Do We Go from Here? Teva’s Impact on IPR and District Court Practice

The recent Supreme Court case of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. held that, although the ultimate issue of claim construction is a legal question subject to de novo review, underlying factual determinations...more

PTAB Panels Are Divided Regarding Interpretation Of The Joinder Provision

The America Invents Act (AIA) allows a petitioner to request joinder of an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent with an IPR proceeding previously instituted with respect to that patent so long as the request for joinder is...more

IPR Incorporation by Reference Argument Not Enough to Save Priority Claim

Many patent challengers have found “incorporation by reference” arguments to be a tempting way to try to convert an obviousness argument into an anticipation argument, but “incorporation by reference” can also impact whether...more

Third Party Subpoena Permitted in IPR - Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

After briefing on the Garmin factors to determine if additional discovery was “necessary in the interest of justice” during an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the patent...more

586 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 24

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.
×