Patent Trial and Appeal Board

News & Analysis as of

Case Alert -- Federal Circuit Reverses District Court Denying Stay Pending Covered Business Method Review

On July 10, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., in which it reversed the district court’s order denying Salesforce’s motion to stay the district court suit pending...more

The Duty Of Candor: Letting The Truth Shine

“Three things cannot hide for long: the Moon, the Sun, and the Truth.” The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) relies on the truth coming to light to resolve disputes in post-grant proceedings in a “just, speedy, and...more

Federal Circuit Orders Stay Pending Completion of CBM Review

Applying section 18(a)(1) of the America Invents Act (AIA) to an issue of first impression, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court, ordering a stay of the district court...more

Deputy Directory Lee Announces the Request for Written Comments to Help Improve PTAB Proceedings

In a post from yesterday entitled "Help Improve our AIA Trial Proceedings," Michelle Lee, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, announced on...more

Walker Digital v. Google: Stay Pending CBM Review Denied Where Discovery Was Complete and Stay Would Prejudice the Plaintiff

After the PTAB instituted a CBM review of the patents-in-suit, Google sought a stay of the litigation pending resolution of CBM review by the PTAB. The district court explained that "[c]ourts consider four factors when...more

Federal Circuit Favors Stay of Litigation Pending CBMR

In Virtualagility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., [2014-1232] (July 20. 2014), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a stay of an infringement suit pursuant to AIA § 18(b)(1) pending disposition of a...more

IP Newsflash - July 2014

Federal Circuit Orders Stay of District Court Proceedings Pending Post-Grant Review - In its first decision on stays pending post-grant review under the AIA, the Federal Circuit has ordered a Texas district court to...more

The Duty to Indemnify Does Not Create Privity

Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. - In the final written decisions of two related inter partes reviews (IPRs) concerning patents in the same family, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial...more

Know Your Objections: Notices, Motions and Discussions with the PTAB

ABB, Inc. v. ROY-G-BIV Corp. - In a final written decision, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) commented that evidence can only be excluded by properly serving a notice and...more

Board Cuts Patent Owners Time in Half to Stay on Schedule

In Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LLC, IPR2014-00950, Paper 9 (July 8, 2014), Petitioner filed a second petition for inter partes review covering claims for which trial was not instituted in its first petition for...more

Board Allows Rare Motion for Additional Discovery

In a relatively rare grant of a Motion For Additional Discovery, in Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. (IPR2013-00453,, Paper 40), Patent Owner sought additional discovery pertaining to its contention...more

The PTAB Was Right the First Time

EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC - In a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim...more

Expert Testimony Must Be Supported by Evidence

Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B.V. - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued final written decisions in 10 inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Although early IPR decisions generally have sustained...more

More Details, Details

Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. J2 Global, Inc., IPR2014-01027, Paper 4 (July 7, 2014), the Board granted the petition a filing date, but required the petition to fix the claim charts, which may not “include arguments,...more

Instruction Not to Answer on Relevance Grounds Improper in IPR Depositions

iStock_000001758213XSmallIn Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics, IPR 2013-00131, Patent Owner’s counsel prevented Petitioner from questioning a witness by instructing the witness not to answer questions on the ground of...more

Patent Owner Failed to Justify Joining Five IPR’s

In Ford Motor Co. v. Cruise Control Technologies LLC, IPR2014-0281, Paper 19, (July 2, 2014) the Board denied patent owner’s motion to join five proceedings U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463. The Board ducked the question of whether...more

PTAB Permits Substitution of New Claims in Challenged Patent

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. The United States - In a move unprecedented in any inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) allowed the patent owner—the U.S. Department of...more

Testimony of Expert Witness: Key Patentability Arguments in Inter Partes Review

SATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Anest Iwata Corp. - In a final written decision, in an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejected a patent owner’s motion to...more

A Party Needs Compelling Reasons for Discovery

Permobil, Inc. v. Pride Mobility Products Corporation, IPR2013-00407, Paper 43 (July 2, 2014), the Board denied the patent owner’s motion to compel production evidence of copying of the products embodying patent owner’s...more

PTAB Grants Rare Motion for Reconsideration

In PNY Tech., Inc. v. Phison Elec. Corp., (IPR2013-00472, Paper 16), Patent Owner filed a request for rehearing of the Decision on Institution contesting the Board misinterpreted the governing law regarding inherency. To...more

Disclosure of a Single Embodiment Can Provide Sufficient Written Description

Tobinick v. Olmarker - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), finding that the disclosure of a single embodiment falling with the scope of the claims was...more

Dolly Was a "Natural Phenomenon"

In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh) - Addressing patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more

Board Addresses Procedure for Making Board Aware of Supplemental Evidence

There has been, to date, much confusion surrounding the propriety and timing of filing “supplemental evidence” with the Board. In Sealed Air Corporation v. Pergis Innovative Packing, Inc., IPR2013-00554 through...more

Indefiniteness Standard During Prosecution

In re Packard - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner’s indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), invoking the...more

Sur-Reply Authorized By Board in Response to New Expert Testimony in Petitioner Reply by Patent Owner

The PTAB has, to date, been very strict about the timeline of events in an inter partes review proceeding, as well as ensuring the proceedings are streamlined. That’s what makes the Board’s decision in Zodiac Pool Systems,...more

184 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 8