Patent Trial and Appeal Board

News & Analysis as of

Board Explains the Process for Evidentiary Objections—and Illustrates the Severe Penalty for Not Following It

Practitioners who are used to district court litigation may be surprised—and tripped up—by the rules for objecting to evidence in IPRs, which differ significantly from the approach used in litigation. The Board’s Final...more

High Stakes Race Between Apple and VirnetX: Will PTAB Trump The Texas Jury's Award of $326.5M?

A Texas jury today raised the stakes even higher in a race involving parallel proceedings between the PTAB and Texas district court when it found that Apple infringed the VirnetX patents and awarded to VirnetX $625.6M in...more

Asset Transferee Cannot Appeal Reexamination

The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal in Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp., because the appellant was not a “third-party requester” dissatisfied with the final decision in an inter partes...more

PTAB Denies Amgen’s IPR in Win for AbbVie – Article “Suggests a High Degree of Unpredictability” in the Art at Time of Invention

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently denied institution of Amgen’s inter partes review against an AbbVie patent covering HUMIRA® (currently, the best-selling drug in the world). ...more

Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of obviousness, and that a patentee not be able to amend claims in an inter partes review proceeding, in an opinion handed down January 29th in Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. Intelligent...more

Split Federal Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Single PTAB Panels Rendering Both Institution & Final Written Decisions

On January 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, IPR2013-00209, that all of the claims of U.S. Patent 8,317,070 are obvious. While the obviousness...more

PTAB Decision Highlights The Importance Of Petitioners Filing Within 1 Year Of The Earliest Possible Date Of Service

It is well known that an Inter Partes Review (IPR) may not be instituted if the petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement more than 1 year prior to the filing of the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Recent...more

Petitioners: Put All Needed Evidence in Your Petition - Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.

Addressing the rules governing admissibility of supplemental information during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

NRT Technology Corp. v. Everi Payments, Inc. (PTAB 2016)

Business Method Patent Survives PTAB Review - On January 22, 2016, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of a covered business method (CBM) patent review in a case captioned...more

PTAB Panel that Institutes an IPR May Also Render Final Decision on the Merits in that IPR

On January 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit held that there is no violation of due process rights when the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) panel that institutes an inter partes review (IPR) also renders the final decision...more

APA Review of IPR Decisions to Institute Proving to be a Dead-end

The recent ruling in Medtronic v. Lee, No. 1-15-cv-946 (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2016) clarifies certain important questions about whether APA review is available when a petitioner is dissatisfied with the PTAB institution decision....more

“Substantial Evidence” Review Dooms PTAB Appeal - Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A.

Addressing the issue of obviousness in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) under a...more

But, Why?

In Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motive Power, Inc., [2015-1316] the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision that claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,990,018 were invalid for obviousness because the Board did not adequately describe its...more

Inphi v. Netlist: Alternative Features Satisfy the Patent Written Description Requirement for a Negative Claim Limitation

It can be tricky to evaluate written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for negative claim limitations since the support may amount to the absence of a feature from an invention that is described positively with...more

2015 IP Law Year In Review

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (May 26, 2015) - ..Does a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid serve as a defense to charges of inducing infringement? NO - ..Inducement requires...more

Cutsforth Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc.

Back in January 2002, when this author was near the beginning of his patent law career, the Federal Circuit handed down the In re Sang-Su Lee case. Among other things, this case provided patent practitioners with support for...more

Cuozzo Expanded to CBMs to Bar Appellate Review of Institution Decisions - SightSound Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc.

Addressing the bar on appellate reviewability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that § 324(e) bars review of the Board’s decision to...more

Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should

In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, [2014-1771](January 13, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the same panel of the PTAB can make the decision to institute an IPR and the final written decision, and that the PTAB...more

Federal Circuit Review | January 2016

The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more

BioPharma Patents: Quick Tips & News - January 2016

Subject matter eligibility and “laws of nature.” As reported in our July 2015 newsletter, the Federal Circuit invalidated claims to a method of diagnosing fetal abnormalities without amniocentesis. This precedent—if it...more

CRISPR Interference Declared

CRISPR (an acronym for Clustered Regularly lnterspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), which is part of a system for altering chromosomal sequences in situ in a cell in combination with a bacterially derived protein called Cas9,...more

Federal Circuit Issues Ironic Decision Reversing PTAB For Not Providing Enough Analysis

The PTAB was rebuked by the Federal Circuit on January 22nd for failing to provide an adequate description of its reasoning for finding the claims of the challenged patent obvious in an inter partes review proceeding. In...more

Post-Grant PTAB Procedures Are Constitutional - MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Federal Circuit ruled that because patents were a public right,...more

District Court Declines to Stay Action Pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") Where Claim Construction Briefing Had Already Occurred

After the PTAB granted Defendant's petition for IPR on certain of the claims in the patent-in-suit, the defendant filed a motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the IPR. The plaintiffs objected to a stay, but...more

As Urged by PhRMA and BIO, Supreme Court Agrees to Review Claim Construction Standard Used in Patent Office Trials

Pharmaceutical companies have reason to be pleased with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for...more

935 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 38

"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.
×