On July 6, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Ford Motor Company’s (“Petitioner”) request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of multiple inter partes reviews (IPR)...more
The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision...more
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
2015 was a busy year for post-grant review appeals at the Federal Circuit and produced notable opinions in the areas of claim construction, IPR procedural issues, and the constitutionality of IPRs in general. In 2015, the...more
The Federal Circuit has again held that it lacks jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board in Inter Partes Reviews, continuing the Court’s apparent “hands off” approach to reviewing PTAB...more
The Survey Says: Tiffany Is Not Generic for A Ring Setting - Last month, the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to Tiffany & Co. on its trademark infringement claim against Costco Wholesale...more
In two related decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that patents directed to a personal computer interactive lottery/casino type game that allows players to purchase game tickets in the form...more
Earlier this week, in the Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc. case, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the holding in In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC that it could not review any decision by the Patent Trial and...more
In the first appeal of a covered business method (CBM) review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) decision, and explained that the eligibility of a...more
Since the America Invents Act (AIA) passed in 2012, Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews have become the Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of non-practicing entities, also referred to as patent trolls. Many CBM...more
What Is a "technological invention"? The other part of the CBM definition at issue in Versata is the exclusion of a technological invention from the scope of CBM review. Correctly, the Court noted that the USPTO's...more
Part I: #AliceStorm and Versata - July invokes images of hot days, cool nights, and fireworks. When it comes to #Alicestorm, the fireworks are happening in the courts, with the Federal Circuit lighting up the sky....more
On July 9, 2015, a divided Federal Circuit held in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 14-1194, that it can review Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determinations that a patent is a "covered business...more
The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a precedential opinion in Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015), finding the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In addition to...more