Inter Partes Review Proceedings

News & Analysis as of

PTAB Update -- A Review of the First Round of Comments (Part 1)

The USPTO has been seeking feedback on the PTAB trial proceedings established by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. A Federal Register Notice from June 27, 2014 contained the "Request for Comments on Trial Proceedings...more

Stay pending interlocutory appeal of denial of stay for ungranted CBM petitions denied

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777 - Summary: JP Morgan Chase (“JPMC”), having lost a motion to stay this case pending resolution of IPRs and CBMs [LINK TO 19...more

In an IPR Proceeding With Several Listed Petitioners, The Petitioners Must Speak With A Single Voice

In IPR2014-00954, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") (A.P.J.s Petravick, Deshpande, and Clements) issued a decision regarding the proper identification of lead and backup counsel listed in the powers of attorneys in...more

Prior Denial of IPR Petitions Dooms Litigation Stay Based On "Second Round" of Petitions Under the Totality of the Circumstances...

In CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Case No. 1:14-cv-21499-UU, the Court denied, without prejudice, Defendant's motion to stay the litigation pending the inter partes review of the two patents-in-suit....more

IPR Petition Barred Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)

The PTAB denied a petition for inter partes review as barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the PTAB determined that the petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent more than a year before it...more

No stays for IPRs and CBMs in view of advanced stage of litigation and long PTAB timeline

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777 - Summary: In litigation filed June 2013 with a trial anticipated in the summer of 2015, Judge Hellerstein denied JP Morgan...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Dorman Products, Inc. v. PACCAR, Inc.

Decision Date: September 5, 2014 - Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D525,731 and D526,429 - Holding: Petitions to Institute Inter Partes Review DENIED Opinion: Dorman...more

PTAB Decides Inter Partes Review of Patent at Issue in Ariosa v. Sequenom

On September 2nd, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) entered judgment in an inter partes review styled Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. (IPR 2012-00022). The Board found that Ariosa demonstrated, by a...more

IP Newsflash - September 2014 #2

Airline Rewards Conversion Method Invalid Under Alice and Bilski - On September 2, 2014, Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas, ruled that two patents on a...more

Judge Griesa finds a patent prosecution bar does not preclude litigation counsel from assisting in an IPR, and would have reached...

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. Case Number: 1:12-cv-08060 - Patentee Endo asked the court to rule that the protective orders in the patent infringement cases it filed...more

Arguments in Claim Charts Continue to Plague Petitions

In Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc., IPR2014-01338, Paper 3 (September 2, 2014), the Board according the petition a filing date, but objected to the claim chart, because they contained arguments. ...more

Patent Filings, Institution Decisions and Dispositions for September 12, 2014

Institution Decisions In Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00736, Paper 10 (September 12, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,676,446....more

PGR Report -- The Attack of 35 U.S.C. § 112

Last week, on September 2, 2014, Accord Healthcare, Inc. ("Accord") filed what appears to be the second-ever Post-Grant Review ("PGR") (see Petition). This PGR was for U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 ("the '219 Patent"), which is...more

Patent Filings, Institution Decisions, and Dispositions for September 11, 2014

Institution Decisions - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., IPR2014-00488, Paper 17 (September 11, 2014), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,769,605 (“all...more

Patent Filings on September 10, 2014

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00500, Paper 12 (September 10, 2014) instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 13–15, 17, 21, 24–26, 28, 30, 33–35, 37, 39, and 40 of U.S. Patent No....more

Despite Lack of Familiarity with Specific Technology-at-Issue, Industry Expert Not Excluded

The Board continued its reluctance to exclude evidence in inter partes review proceedings in Primera Technology, Inc., v. Automatic Manufacturing Systems, Inc., Final Written Decision, IPR2013-00196 by denying a motion to...more

Inherency Is Tough to Prove—Even in IPR

ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. - In four final written decisions in inter partes review (IPR) challenges, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated by a...more

Emerging Impact of Inter Partes Review on Hatch Waxman Litigation – A Primer

Hatch-Waxman Litigation in a Nutshell - Hatch-Waxman litigation refers to pharmaceutical patent litigation between a brand drug manufacturer and a generic drug manufacturer under the Hatch-Waxman Act (“Act”). The Act...more

The Importance of the One-Year AIA Timeline

Rackspace US, Inc. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC - Addressing the one-year time frame for completing inter partes review (IPR) in the context of a stay request, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial...more

High Bar for Discovery Motions in IPR

Permobil Inc. v. Pridemobility Products Corp. - Addressing a patent owner's motion to compel a petitioner to produce documents concerning petitioner’s alleged copying in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent...more

PTAB Dismisses Argument That Priority Date is a § 112 Issue Not Reviewable in an IPR

In a decision instituting inter partes review, the PTAB rejected a patent owner’s argument that the priority date of the patent is not reviewable in an IPR because it’s an issue under 35 U.S.C. § 112. ...more

Another Requirement to a Successful Motion to Amend Claims

It is getting hard to keep track of all the hoops and hurdles that need to be navigated in bringing a successful motion to amend in an inter partes review proceeding. Each new decision seemingly raises the bar further. The...more

Board Consolidates IPR’s of Two Different (But Related) Patents

In FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., IPR2014-00411, Paper 10 (September 5, 2014), the Board consolited two inter partes reviews directed to different but related patents. In IPR2014-00411 inter partes review was...more

Assignor Estoppel and Motion to Amend Claims Both Tough Sells in Inter Partes Review

Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. - Addressing a patent owner’s request to dismiss an inter partes review (IPR) based on assignor estoppel and motion to amend the claims, the U. S. Patent...more

Patent Owner Bears Burden of Proving Proposed Claims Patentable

Harmonic, Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc. - Addressing the patent owner’s burden of showing non-obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, or...more

272 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 11