On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Arthrex, et al., striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an...more
6/25/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”)...more
In a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued last week, the Board confirmed that the “enhanced estoppel” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) applies to co-pending inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
We first covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017), a case with the potential to substantially alter the patent litigation landscape,...more
12/8/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
In June, we covered the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017). The Court will decide whether inter partes review – an adversarial process...more
A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more
8/24/2016
/ Appeals ,
Apple ,
Common Sense Exception ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Google ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motorola ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Vacated