Patent Trial and Appeal Board

News & Analysis as of

IP Cases to Watch in 2017

The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more

CBM Review Standard

Whether a patent qualifies for a CBM review has been a moving target. Early decisions held that the claims do not need to be directed to a “financial product or service,” since a reference in the specification to a financial...more

Covered Business Methods Patents — Not So Broad!

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in no uncertain terms that covered business method review has limits. In Unwired Planet, LLC v....more

Full Federal Circuit to Decide Whether Some Institution Decisions are Reviewable

On January 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit granted a motion for en banc rehearing in Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. 2015-1944. In the original Wi-Fi One decision, the court held that, due to binding precedent, it could...more

An IPR Does Not Necessarily Have Standing to Appeal if it Loses

In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., [2016-1544] (January 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that Phigenix, the losing petitioner in an IPR, lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision that claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No....more

Federal Circuit Dismisses IPR Appeal for Lack of Standing

In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that the petitioner lacked standing to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written...more

Federal Circuit Limits Petitioner Appeal Rights from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for Inter Partes Reviews

On January 9, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc. dismissing an appeal by a petitioner from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for lack of...more

Federal Circuit Narrows Patent Eligibility for CBM Review

In the recently decided Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc. case, the Federal Circuit significantly narrowed the eligibility standards for covered business method (CBM) patent review. Prior to the decision in Unwired Planet,...more

Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Can any petitioner appeal a Board's final written decision from an inter partes review or post grant review proceeding? Contrary to the language of 35 U.S.C. § 141(c) which permits any party "who is dissatisfied with" the...more

Full Federal Circuit To Consider Appealability of PTAB Decision On Timeliness of IPR Petition

The Federal Circuit has ordered en banc review to consider whether the timeliness of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) can be appealed following the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute review. Wi-Fi...more

Full Federal Circuit To Consider Appealability of PTAB Decision On Timeliness of IPR Petition

The Federal Circuit has ordered en banc review to consider whether the timeliness of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) can be appealed following the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute review. Wi-Fi...more

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB for Improper Claim Construction

Demonstrating again that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard has limits, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that claims of two patents were unpatentable due to anticipation...more

Federal Circuit to review availability of appeal of Patent Trial and Appeal Board institution decisions

On January 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit decided to address en banc the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions on institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs). To date, the Federal Circuit has...more

ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more

PTAB Invalidates Claims for Section 112 Failures

In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found claims 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,876,991 (the “’991 patent”) unpatentable under §§ 112 and 102. US Endodontics, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a...more

Full Federal Circuit to Review Appeals of PTAB Time-Bar Decisions

The hottest recent decisions from the Federal Circuit have centered on post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). One such issue involves when the PTAB is immune from appellate review of decisions it...more

Federal Circuit to Reconsider Appealability of Time-Bar Determinations in Institution Decisions

On January 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit agreed to reconsider en banc a panel decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 837 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which held that a patent owner cannot appeal a determination by the...more

IPR One-Year Time Bar Does Not Apply to Government Contractor

Addressing the appropriate application of the one-year time bar for filing an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that the time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) is not triggered by a...more

Top Five Stories of 2016

After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its tenth annual list of top patent stories. For 2016, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more

PTAB Maintains Obviousness Position after Remand

Addressing obviousness issues, including commercial success, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) maintained its previous decision invalidating the claims of a patent related to coaxial cable connectors after the...more

Third Time’s Not the Charm for IPR Petitioner Adding Known References to Previously Rejected Prior Art Combination

Addressing whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) based on a third petition by the same petitioner against the same patent claims, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution both as an...more

In re Van Os (Fed. Cir. 2017)

"Intuitive" to Combine Insufficient to Support Obviousness Rejection - The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in an appeal from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a case...more

Top Developments at the ITC in 2016

In the last year, this blog has covered a number of substantial developments at the International Trade Commission. Among other things, 2016 saw (1) an increased usage of the ITC’s 100-day program for early resolution of...more

An Examination “Off-Ramp” For Motions To Amend Still Raises Hopes and Questions

During the first three years of implementing the America Invents Act (AIA), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision-making created a perception that a patent owner’s ability to amend claims during a post-grant...more

Enfish, Microsoft Receive Mixed Results on PTAB Rulings

Addressing issues of claim construction and obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s) constructions and invalidity rulings, clearing the way...more

1,435 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 58
Popular Topics

"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*

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

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×