News & Analysis as of

Patent Ownership Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Jones Day

Director Says Typo Was Read Incorrectly

Jones Day on

On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal,...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Patent Owner Estoppel

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IPR “Booted” Where Images on Webpage Coupled with Evidence of Sales Deemed Insufficient to Establish Prior Art Status

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review for a design patent in part because the petitioner failed to show that three asserted references qualified as prior art. Specifically, the...more

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

Reexamination Petition Practice Is a Critical Tool for Patent Owner Success

Takeaways: 1. Nontraditional and unique issue petitions are common for patent owners to properly prosecute reexamination proceedings. 2. Well-drafted petitions influence outcomes and preserve PTAB, District Court, and/or...more

Jones Day

Director Provides Reminders For Obviousness Analysis

Jones Day on

On July 9, 2024, Director Vidal reversed and remanded a denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) relating to three Spin Master patents. See Prime Time Toys LLC v. Spin Master, Inc., IPR Nos. 2023-01339, 2023-01348,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB MTA Pilot Program to the Rescue

On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Delay in Correcting Disclosure of Real Parties-in-Interest not Procedurally Fatal to IPR Petition

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted an inter partes review over patent owner’s objections that the petition did not timely identify all real parties-in-interest (RPI) and was filed by a phantom legal entity after...more

McDermott Will & Emery

From Oops to Encore: The Board’s Premature Adverse Judgment

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) overturned the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s premature adverse judgment against a patent owner and remanded an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding based on the fact that...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

IPR Grounds Doomed for Failure to Show Patent Reference Was Supported by Disclosures in Priority Application

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review, in part because the petitioner failed to show that a key reference qualified as prior art. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner was required to...more

Jones Day

Road Mapping Leads to Dead End

Jones Day on

On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071,...more

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

Submitting Trade Secret, Proprietary, and Protective Order Materials in Reexamination and Reissue

The requirement for disclosure, candor, and good faith between an applicant/patent owner and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) serves an important public interest. Succinctly, each individual associated with the...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – June 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Jones Day

Shifting Burden Dooms Patent Owner

Jones Day on

In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | May 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Infringement Judgement is Only Final when there’s Nothing Left to Do but Execute - In Packet Intelligence LLC v. Netscout Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 22-2064, the Federal Circuit held that an infringement judgment is only...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Patent Infringement Suit Against Indemnitee Forecloses IPR Petition by Indemnitor

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petition was filed more than one year after patent owner had served a complaint for patent...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – May 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Jones Day

Institution Denied For Lack of Sufficient Structure

Jones Day on

The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more

Jones Day

Institution Denial Vacated to Reconsider Prior Art Drawing

Jones Day on

On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

How Close Are They? PTO Looking for “Significant Relationship” Between Sequential IPR Petitioners

Addressing the issue of whether to discretionally deny a petition for inter partes review (IPR) under the General Plastics factors when there is no “significant relationship” between the petitioners, the Director of the US...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - May 2024

SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more

Jones Day

USPTO Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On Discretionary Denial, Serial and Parallel Petitions, and Settlement

Jones Day on

On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues. The Notice addresses stakeholder feedback responsive to the...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

USPTO Director Vacates and Remands PTAB’s Institution Decision Over Insufficient Explanation of Findings

The USPTO Director vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision denying institution of inter partes review for not addressing alleged differences between references in the petition and those considered during prosecution....more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Defendants Ordered to Coordinate Pretrial Litigation in MDL Are Not Necessarily 'Significantly Related' to Support Discretionary...

The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office vacated and remanded a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discretionarily denying institution of an inter partes review petition. The Director concluded that...more

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

IP Hot Topic: USPTO Publishes Long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Updates to PTAB Practice and Procedure

On April 19, 2024, the USPTO published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that followed its April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The proposed rules package, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

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

What’s in a Name? Why Reexamination Is Not a Re-Examination

Long before the America Invents Act (AIA) created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) patent revocation proceedings, the patentability of one or more claims of any patent could be reviewed via Ex Parte Reexamination...more

294 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 12

"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