How to Prevent Executives from Saying the Wrong Thing When Testifying
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 328: Listen and Learn -- Expert vs. Lay Witness Testimony (Evidence)
Law Brief®: Michael Grudberg, Robert Heim and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Theranos Verdict
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 138: Listen and Learn -- Hearsay Exceptions: Prior Testimony and Past Recollection Recorded
Devil in the Details: Gilbert King on Truth and Transparency in the Judicial Process
Podcast - Rule 4: Be a Relentlessly Polite Witness
Podcast - Rule 2: Remember, You Are On The Record
Podcast - Rule 1: Witness, Take Your Time
Three Witness Excuses to Avoiding Preparing
On November 8, 2023, the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony from four witnesses on the proposed Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act....more
Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in 2021 show that antedating a prior-art reference remains a viable option to knock out a ground in an inter partes review (IPR) petition—patent owners were successful in...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
VALVE CORPORATION v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For purposes of authenticating a prior art reference in IPR proceedings, the Board...more
The right expert can be the critical piece that saves the validity of your patent. Finding the right expert for a patent owner requires careful selection and due diligence. We previously detailed how your expert’s testimony...more
As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”), one of the first and most critical tasks before you is deposing the Petitioner’s witnesses, including its experts. But approaching an IPR deposition like a...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) - Our case of the week concerns issues particular to inter partes review...more
In a series of IPR proceedings between Petitioner Adobe Inc. and Patent Owner RAH Color Technologies LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to extend attorney work product protection to deposition questions seeking...more
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of patents relating to printer technology, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Patent Owner’s motion to compel testimony over Petitioner’s arguments that the information...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board allowed live testimony in MPOWERED INC. v. LuminAID Lab, LLC, IPR2018-01524, on November 1, 2019, where a panel granted Patent Owner’s Motion for Live Testimony from a named inventor of the...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
On July 10, 2019, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel designated Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (PTAB July 21, 2014), as precedential. By way of background, during PTAB proceedings, direct...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a decision from 2014, which found that counsel can confer with a deponent at the conclusion of cross examination and prior to redirect. Through...more
On July 10, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (PTAB, July 21, 2014), which concerned the rules governing depositions in the...more
KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC. V. GRACO CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS, INC. Before Moore, Reyna, and Chen. Appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Inventor testimony of prior conception must be independently...more
The Board has broad discretion to determine how much weight should be given to inventor testimony, but as long as the testimony does not relate to the inventor’s opinion about the meaning of a claim term, there is no basis...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
On September 22, 2017, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision regarding claims directed to a switching regulator comprising a power switch and a control circuit. The PTAB found...more
Our report includes discussions of six of the precedential cases decided in the past week and will include the other three cases in next week’s report. In Aylus v. Apple, the panel finds prosecution disclaimer in a...more
The rule changes are aimed at streamlining proceedings before the TTAB. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or the Board) will implement several important rule changes as of January 14, 2017. The changes will...more
In litigation, it is not uncommon for depositions to be taken outside the United States, particularly when a given witness resides outside the United States and cannot or does not wish to travel to the United States. In IPR...more
What have we learned about Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) since its inception on September 16, 2012? Since the September 16, 2012, effective date of the AIA trial provisions, 3,277 IPR petitions have been filed through July...more
On August 20th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published proposed rules that would amend the consolidated set of rules currently governing Inter Partes Reviews, Post-Grant Reviews, Covered Business Method Reviews, and...more