Nonpayment of Subcontractors: Can Subcontractors Get Any Help From the Government?
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 35 USC § 314(d) did not bar its review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that a petitioner was not estopped from maintaining inter partes review (IPR)...more
Semiconductor Components, doing business as ON Semiconductor, petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several claims of Power Integration’s U.S. Patent No. 6,212,079. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more
One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more
In Power Integrations v. Semiconductor Components, the Federal Circuit ruled that privy and real-party-in-interest (RPI) relationships arising after a petition is filed but before institution may bar institution under section...more
Late last week, the Federal Circuit issued Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC and Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. LSI Corp. These two precedential decisions bring further clarity to who is...more
Federal Circuit clarifies that a post-filing change in RPI status can trigger the § 315(b) time-bar and that there are exceptions to issue preclusion in IPR appeals - On June 13, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
In an order designated precedential, the PTAB terminated an instituted IPR proceeding after the petitioner failed to establish that no real parties in interest (“RPI”) or privies had been served with a complaint more than one...more
Addressing the impact of Applications in Internet Time (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 8) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that a petition was time barred because an...more
Broadcom sought inter partes review of three patents owned by Wi-Fi One. In response to Broadcom’s petitions, Wi-Fi One argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with certain...more
Addressing whether an entity should be named as a real-party-in-interest (RPI), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that Google did not need to be listed as an RPI in two separate sets of inter partes review...more
Priority Claims Cannot Be Incorporated by Reference - In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, Appeal Nos. 2016-2707 and 2016-2708, the Federal Circuit held that when a patent for a...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2016-2099, -2100, -2101, -2332, -2333, -2334 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Wallach, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party may not be time-barred from instituting an IPR despite having a business relationship with a...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Dyk, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from PTAB, remanded from the Federal Circuit, en banc. Summary: Time-bar does not apply to IPR petitioner through privity with a district court...more
On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 2015-1944, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018). The issue before the en banc Court was the...more
In a 9-4 split, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc ruled that Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) determinations as to whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely filed are reviewable on appeal, overruling a...more
As a result of recent changes in the PTAB rules of practice, counsel for patent owners should consider whether there are opportunities to identify factual deficiencies in petitions. Counsel for petitioners in inter partes...more
Addressing a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to not institute inter partes review IPR proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded...more
DISTRICT COURT CASES - Humanized Antibody Not Found to Infringe Under DOE - A district court judge granted UCB, Inc.’s (plaintiff) motion for summary judgment that its Cimzia® product, a humanized monoclonal...more
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
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
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - FRCP 19(a) Cannot Be Used to Involuntarily Join an Unwilling Patent Co-Owner to Infringement Litigation: On June 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District of New...more