Patent Trial and Appeal Board

News & Analysis as of

The Federal Circuit Reviews Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions on Inter Partes Review

There are now three decisions of the Federal Circuit on appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on inter partes reviews: - In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC - Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC and -...more

Catalog Search Posted On Claim Preclusion Does Not Bar Additional Discovery Relating to Privity Challenge in Later-Filed IPR...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated a decision granting a request for additional discovery as an informative opinion. Informative opinions are not binding; they rather provide guidance on rules and...more

Bio/Pharma IPR Challenges Nearly Double in 2015

Newly released statistics (2015-06-30 PTAB Statistics) from the USPTO reveal that the number of bio/pharma IPR challenges almost doubled in 2015, even though fiscal year 2015 still has three months to go. Last year, there...more

PTAB Opens Door for Amendments in Post-Grant Review Proceedings

In a decision that sends a clear message to Patent Owners that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is opening the door for amendments in post grant review proceedings, on July 15, 2015 the PTAB issued a new order...more

PTAB Average Time-To-Decision in IPRs May Surprise You

This post was co-authored by Foley & Lardner Summer Associate Jonathan E. Robe. Ever wonder how long it takes the PTAB to decide to institute trial? Ever have someone ask how long it will take for the Board to issue its...more

House Committee Advances Competing Patent Reform Legislation

With yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee vote, there are now competing, and in some respects significantly different, patent reform proposals under serious consideration in the House and the Senate. Among the most important...more

Doubling Down on Idle Free

In Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (July 15, 2015), the Board instructed that patent owners seeking to amend their applications should still follow all of the requirements set forth in Idle Free...more

Lessons From The 1st Biopharma Inter Partes Reviews

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued its first set of final written decisions in three inter partes reviews relating to molecules in the large molecule biopharma space (IPR2013-00534, IPR2013-00535 and...more

Six Tips for Demonstratives in PTAB Hearings

Oral hearings before the PTAB are the time to shine, to convince the judges why your position is right, why your opponent’s position is wrong, and to address questions head-on and reassure the judges regarding any real or...more

Federal Circuit Answers Questions About Covered Business Method Review Proceedings

In Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., the Federal Circuit outlined the permitted extent of judicial review of Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review proceedings conducted by the USPTO Patent Trial and...more

CBM Claims Not Addressed in the PTAB's Final Decision May Be Challenged in a Follow-On CBM Proceeding

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board added a decision declining to apply estoppel under 35 USC 325(e)(1) to dismiss a follow-on CBM proceeding in Westlake Services LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176 to the...more

Endo Pharma Patent Survives IPR Trial

Amneal Pharmaceuticals came up short in its bid to knock out numerous claims of Endo Pharmaceuticals’ US Patent No. 8,329,216 in a Final Written Decision issued on July 22, 2015, Amneal Pharm., LLC v. Endo Pharm. Inc.,...more

Federal Circuit Upholds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in Inter Partes Review

A divided Federal Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc that would have required the court to revisit its decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (Fed Cir 2015), that upheld the USPTO’s use of the...more

PTAB Issues Representative Order Clarifying Motion to Amend Analysis in Idle Free Systems

Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) added a recent order to its list of Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices. See MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB July 15, 2015). ...more

PTAB Highlights Motion to Amend Decision

Another day, another key decision from the PTAB. This time, the Board has highlighted a Motion to Amend opinion entered in MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD, Inc., IPR2015-00040, decided by six Administrative Patent...more

Real Party-in-Interest and Privy of the Petitioner: Part 2 in Estoppel Analysis

Last week we outlined our suggestions as to what an IPR petitioner should assert in an IPR action to avoid triggering the "could have raised" estoppel in a later filed district court action. But what if the party involved in...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Simmons Bedding Company v. Sealy Technology LLC

Decision Date: March 31, 2015 - Court: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D622,531 - Holding: Examiner’s decision in reexamination proceeding not to adopt Requester’s obviousness rejections REVERSED...more

PTAB Designates New “Informative Opinion”

When the PTAB considers one of its own decisions to be “informative,” it is always worth taking note. On Friday, July 17th, the Board designated its opinion in Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., IPR2015-00635 as...more

IP Newsflash - July 2015 #2

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - The Federal Circuit Rules that the PTAB’s Decision to Institute a CBM Cannot Be Challenged in Court This week, the Federal Circuit decided Versata II, a companion case to Versata Development...more

Tangle Between Hair Care Companies Stayed Pending IPR

Days after the PTAB instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), Judge Alvin Thompson in the District of Connecticut has stayed a case between Conair and Tre Milano. Conair sued Tre Milano in October 2014, for infringing U.S....more

Should the Federal Circuit Be Reviewing Any Part of the Decision to Institute? -- The Versata Dissent-in-part

As we reported earlier, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decision in the Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc. case -- the first appeal under the covered business method ("CBM") patent...more

Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability in Much Anticipated First Review of CBM Decision

Since the America Invents Act (AIA) passed in 2012, Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews have become the Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of non-practicing entities, also referred to as patent trolls. Many CBM...more

Federal Circuit Affirms First Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decision in a Covered Business Method Review

On July 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the first Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) decision concerning Covered Business Method (“CBM”) reviews, which were...more

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established a transitional program through which the USPTO conducts post-grant reviews of covered business method (CBM) patents. For the most part, § 18 incorporates...more

Versata: The Federal Circuit Explains the Parameters and Appealability of CBM Proceedings

On July 9, 2015, the Federal Circuit decided its first appeal of a covered business method (“CBM”) patent review. In Versata Development Group Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al., Case No. 14-1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015)...more

619 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 25

"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*

*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.
×