Latest Publications

Share:

PTAB Designates as Precedential the General Plastics Decision on Follow-On Petitions

On October 18, 2017, the PTAB designated as “precedential” a major portion of its prior decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushki Kaisha. The decision was previously designated “informative,” but now,...more

The Eastern District of Texas Again Broadly Applies IPR Estoppel and Finds a Joined Party in the IPR Is Also Subject to Estoppel

A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. Case No. 6:11-cv-492 (E.D.Tex. September 25, 2017) that Hewlett-Packard (“HP”) should be estopped...more

PTAB Designates as “Informative” Expanded PTAB Panel Decision Adopting the Seven NVIDIA Factors For Evaluating Follow-On Petitions...

The PTAB’s Chief Administrative Patent Judge and Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge joined an expanded PTAB panel that adopted the seven NVIDIA factors and denied institution of the Petitioner’s follow-on petitions in...more

How to Lose an IPR but Amend Your Claims in Reexam and Keep Your Patent

On August 30, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in M & P Golf, LLC (d/b/a Cool Clubs) v. Max Out Golf, LLC, IPR2016-00784, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B August 30, 2017), entering adverse judgement on the original patent...more

PTAB Grants Rare Supplemental Motion to Amend on Remand from Federal Circuit

On remand from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB granted Veritas’s Supplemental Motion to Amend for one substitute claim and denied the motion with respect to a second claim in Veeam Software Corporation v. Veritas Technologies...more

PTAB Grants-in-Part Rare Motion to Amend Based on Unexpected Results

The PTAB granted-in-part a patent owner’s motion to substitute claims based on evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness in Valeo North America, Inc. v. Schaeffler Technologies, AG & CO. KG, IPR2016-00502, Paper...more

PTAB Not Barred from Using Patent Owner Submissions as a Basis for Holding Claims Unpatentable

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s final written decision holding that claims directed to steel making methods were obvious in Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, No. 2016-2233 (Fed. Cir. May 11,...more

Magistrate Judge Recommends IPR Estoppel Bar of Prior Art References

A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended in Biscotti, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01015, DI 191 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) that Microsoft should be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that...more

PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures

In a Final Written Decision in Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc., IPR2016-00130, Paper 35 (P.T.A.B. May 8, 2017), the PTAB found that petitioner Johns Manville (JM) was not estopped from raising its own company...more

PTAB Considers What Constitutes “By Another” Under § 102(e) in Determining Whether Challenged Claims are Unpatentable

In a final written decision in Duncan Parking Tech., Inc. v. IPS Group Inc., IPR2016-00067, Paper 29 (P.TA.B. Mar. 27, 2017), the PTAB evaluated whether a prior art reference alleged to anticipate the challenged patent under...more

10 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.