Patent Trial and Appeal Board

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

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

PTAB Rejects “Unusual” Inventor Testimony That His Own Invention Was Not Reduced To Practice and Finds His Claims Not Unpatentable

In a final written decision, the PTAB found the petitioner failed to prove challenged claims unpatentable and rejected “unusual” inventor testimony about reduction to practice that was opposite the typical situation where...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

USPTO Extends Deadline for Comments to Help Improve PTAB Proceedings

If you were planning on letting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office know how you feel about the use of the "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" standard for claim construction during PTAB trials or the near impossibility of...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

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

PTAB Threatens Sanctions for Unauthorized E-mails

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLC - Addressing a patent owner’s unauthorized e-mail arguing for additional discovery and the petitioner’s likewise unauthorized responsive e-mail, an...more

No “Correct” Pronunciation for Trademarks that Are Unrecognized Words

StonCor Group, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in affirming a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) ruling finding no likelihood of confusion between the...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

Patentee Owner Must Show a Nexus Between Alleged Commercial Success and the Claimed Technology

Vibrant Media, Inc. v. General Electric Co. - Addressing the issue of whether secondary considerations for non-obviousness showing commercial success of a system allegedly infringing a patent could rebut prima facie...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

The First Derivation Proceeding: Possession Not Enough: Need to Show Prior Conception of Claim Subject Matter

Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd v. Adidas AG - In denying institution for the first derivation petition considered on the merits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) found that the petition was fatally flawed in...more

Using the US Patent and Trademark Office to Neutralize Invalid Patents

How do you deal with a patent that may cover a product or service that you plan to make, use, sell, or import? What happens if one of your competitors controls that patent? Or if you receive a letter threatening a patent...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

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

The Heavy Burden of a Motion to Amend

LaRose Indus., LLC v. Capriola Corp. - Addressing issues of claim construction and the requirements of a motion to amend, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) ordered the claims at issue were unpatentable and...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

Late Addition of a Real-Party-in-Interest Allowed in Inter Partes Review

What if you come up short in naming all of the real-parties-in-interest to an inter partes review proceeding? Will the Board allow you to amend your petition? Four related IPR proceedings required the Board to address this...more

Kappos v. Hyatt Applies Broadly to Raising New Issues in District Court Actions

Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp. - Addressing the scope of permissible new issues and evidence admissible in 35 U.S.C. § 146 district court proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a...more

231 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10