The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief, finding that a party is not entitled to petition the director for review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision denying institution of an...more
In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) - In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act granted the Patent Office authority to issue “regulations . . . establishing and governing inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C § 316(a)(4). For the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently declined to hear an appeal or grant a writ of mandamus seeking review of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter partes review proceedings even though...more
Last month, in the case In re: MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) dismissed an appeal by MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. (“MaxPower”) of four determinations to institute inter...more
In Mylan Labs Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., the Federal Circuit reaffirmed it lacked jurisdiction over appeals from the PTAB denying IPR institution, noted that it had jurisdiction over requests for mandamus, but that...more
One way to challenge the validity of a patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is through a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”). The USPTO Director has delegated responsibility to the Patent...more
PTAB May Not Cancel Claims on the Grounds of Indefiniteness in an IPR Proceeding - In Samsung Electronics America v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 19-1169, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
ArcelorMittal Atlantique Et Lorraine v. AK Steel Corporation, Appeal No. 2017-1637 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2018) - In an opinion originally filed as sealed on Nov. 5 and unsealed on Nov. 18, the Federal Circuit vacated and...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
The Federal Circuit recently denied Power Integrations, Inc.’s (“PI”) attempt to obtain a writ of mandamus to circumvent the bar in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) to appeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions denying...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Bryson, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A writ of mandamus cannot be used as an alternative means of obtaining appellate review of...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) In an appeal of an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed for the first time the...more
Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-2616, -2656 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018) - In an appeal from a inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed a PTAB obviousness...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
This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview - Why it matters: The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive...more
Federal Circuit Construes Claim Term in a Manner that Rendered Claim Language Superfluous - In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, Appeal No. 2015-1251, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision on a writ of mandamus as to the scope of the estoppel provided in 35 U.S.C § 315(e) appears to be contrary to the scope that practitioners and the legislators had in mind when the America...more
A recent case at the Federal Circuit seems to significantly limit the estoppel effect of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) that is instituted on some grounds, but not all. The case adds another arrow in the strategic quiver of...more
On March 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay to permit briefing by the parties on the question of whether the PTAB properly ruled that Apple could use the joinder process in Mangrove Capital’s IPR against...more