The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
On Thursday of last week in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corporation, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions (IPR2015-01584 and IPR2015-01600) finding that a single claim in...more
With the implementation of the America Invents Act and the United States moving to a first-to-file regime, there is greater time pressure to file patent applications than ever before. When patent protection in ex-US...more
On April 8, 2019, ALJ Cheney issued an order denying the addition of an email to the exhibit list at the eve of the evidentiary hearing. Certain Strontium-Rubidium Radioisotope Infusion Systems, and Components Thereof...more
In Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al., the Discovery Master ruled that, under 9th Circuit law, pre-suit, patent analysis documents qualified for immunity from discovery under the work product...more
In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Shaw denied in part the Respondents’ Motion to Supplement their Notice of Prior Art. In re Certain Strontium-Rubidium Radioisotope Infusion Systems, And Components Thereof Including...more
As we previously reported, following the Supreme Court’s June 12, 2017 decision in Sandoz v. Amgen, the Federal Circuit on July 26, 2017, issued an order recalling its October 23, 2015 mandate, reinstating the appeal, and...more
On Tuesday, Amgen filed its supplemental brief opposing Sandoz’s petition for writ and responding to the Solicitor General’s brief, which we discussed here. In sum, the Solicitor General sided with Sandoz, stating that: ...more
Having examined countless witnesses in probate and other contested Surrogate’s Court proceedings, many of us have grown accustomed to learning that critical documents were destroyed by a “flood.” That flood, almost...more
The Divisonal Court’s recent decision in Dine v Biomet Inc, 2016 ONSC 4039 will be of particular interest to members of the class action bar in Ontario, as it will have implications for evidence led on certification motions....more
“Vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome and/or irrelevant.” All lawyers are certainly familiar with this “laundry list” of common discovery objections. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit...more
A Land Use Practitioner representing opposition intervenors in a quasi-judicial land use matter is best served to present any evidence of special damages during the quasi-judicial hearing in order to preserve standing for...more
Addressing the requirements to offer supplemental evidence and information, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the patent owner’s requests for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental...more
The PTAB at the Federal Circuit -- Supplemental Evidence Edition - On New Year's Eve, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's denial of a motion to submit supplemental evidence pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a),...more
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendant to supplement its contentions regarding its license defense to provide the detail for claiming plaintiff is not licensed. Defendant may not avoid its obligations merely by...more
Addressing whether a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) can respond to a patent owner’s preliminary response, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the...more
Last week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed some unique issues with respect to the trial court record in an appeal of a quasi-judicial proceeding....more
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that a party need not renew an objection to evidence if...more
National Environmental Products Ltd. v. Dri-Steem Corp.; PNC Bank National Ass’n v. Secure Axcess, LLC - In two recent decisions demonstrating that amending a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with supplemental...more
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. - Addressing whether prior-art-related submissions by a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding are supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. 42.123(a) or...more