News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Standing to Appeal PTAB Decision to Federal Circuit is Measured for the Appellant, Not the Appellee

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit determined that Article III standing was not necessary for an appellee to participate in a judicial appeal of an IPR final written decision because the appellant had Article III standing in Personal Audio,...more

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics – August 2017

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

Through August 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided 236 PTAB appeals from IPRs and CBMs. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB on every issue in 175 (74.15%) cases, and reversed or vacated the PTAB on every issue in 25...more

PTAB Denies Discovery on Chipsets Purportedly Related to Proper Interpretation of Reference

by Jones Day on

In Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC v. Power Integrations, IPR2016-00809, Paper 65 (PTAB Aug. 4, 2017), the PTAB denied the patent owner’s request for authorization to serve requests for production seeking documents...more

The PTAB Reaches Same Determination After Remand Despite Having Construction and Analysis Set Aside

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable in an IPR after the Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. On remand, the PTAB reached the same...more

U.S. International Trade Commission Persists with Remedy for PTAB-Invalidated Patent

The U.S. International Trade Commission has declined to rescind remedial orders blocking importation of products found to infringe two patents that were recently found invalid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S....more

Issue Seven: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Parallel Proceedings - In In re Certain Network Devices and Related Software and Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-935, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) had issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and a cease...more

Three Point Shot - August 2017

by Proskauer Rose LLP on

Eastern District Heavyweight Bout Ends in Stunning Trademark Technical Knockout - Floyd Mayweather and Connor McGregor's late-August 2017 matchup may be the most highly anticipated boxing event in decades. But while "The...more

PTO Designates Precedential its Athena Automation Decision on Assignor Estoppel in IPR

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

The PTAB designated as precedential its Institution Decision in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Moldings Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290, Paper No. 18 (Oct. 25, 2013). According to the Patent Office’s message announcing...more

District Court Finds Estoppel for Non-Petitioned Grounds but not for Dicta

by Jones Day on

Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were...more

Changes to PTAB Practice Proposed by STRONGER Patents Act of 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

The STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience) Patents Act of 2017 was recently introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group led by Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) and co-sponsored...more

Federal Circuit Criticizes PTAB for Failing to Properly Weigh Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals again vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel decision for failing to properly evaluate “objective evidence of non-obviousness” and remanded the case for determinations...more

Invalidated Patents Being Burned in Protest – A New Milestone in Recent American History

One of the great oddities of the U.S. patent system is the relative ease with which the rules allow a duly examined patent to be cancelled by the PTAB. These guys were pretty disillusioned by the process, even if the result...more

Whether You Need to Show Standing Depends on Where You Are Standing

The Federal Circuit (CAFC) held in Consumer Watchdog v. WARF, 753 F.3d 1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2014), that while one does not need to satisfy Article III standing requirements to prosecute an Inter Partes re-examination in...more

2013 Decision on Assignor Estoppel Designated as Precedential by PTAB

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential its October 25, 2013, decision to institute inter partes review and declined to apply the doctrine of assignor estoppel as an exception to 35 U.S.C.§311(a). Section...more

Genentech to Defend 3 of 4 Herceptin® Patents Challenged by Hospira

by Jones Day on

At least 19 IPRs have been filed against seven of Genentech’s patents covering its blockbuster antibody drug Herceptin® (trastuzumab). On July 27, 2017, the PTAB instituted IPRs filed by Hospira, Inc. (a subsidiary of Pfizer)...more

Design Patent PTO Litigation Statistics (Through July 1, 2017)

The statistics below reveal the current trends on proceeding breakdowns, institution rates, and outcomes of design patent PTO litigation. Since February 2017, with 13 additional design patent institution decisions the...more

Assignor Estoppel is Not a Defense in Inter Partes Reviews

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently designated as “precedential” a PTAB opinion issued in 2013 finding that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in inter partes review proceedings (“IPR”). ...more

PTAB Designates Portion Of Assignor Estoppel Opinion As Precedential

by Jones Day on

In October 2016, we posted about a Federal Circuit decision addressing whether assignor estoppel bars a party from filing an inter partes review petition. In Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., the...more

Board Was Mixed Up Over Blender Patent

In Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., [2016-1511] (August 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that Whirlpool’s U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 relating to a household blender was not...more

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to...

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more

The Use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art in IPR Petitions

by WilmerHale on

Admissions made by the patentee, either in the patent specification or during the course of prosecution, identifying a particular work as ‘‘prior art’’ can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations....more

CAFC Finds Another PTAB Claim Construction Unreasonable and Again Reverses an Invalidity Holding

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the meaning of terms used in challenged claims of an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the claim language and the specification. The...more

Delayed Payment Proves Fatal for Cultec’s PTAB Challenge

by Jones Day on

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), a petition for inter partes review (IPR) may not be filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner was served with a patent infringement complaint. Thus, a petition must meet all of...more

PTAB Designates As Precedential A Decision Finding Assignor Estoppel Is Not A Defense in IPRs

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB recently designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in IPR proceedings in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290,...more

Can Unexpected Results Make the Obvious Non-Obvious?

In Honeywell, Int’l Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A., [16-1996] (August 1, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the USTPO’s reexamination decision invalidating claims 1–26, 31–37, 46–49, 58, 59, 61–68, 70–75, 80, and 81 of...more

1,895 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 76
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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.