The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more
1/13/2017
/ America Invents Act ,
Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Cell Phones ,
Design Patent ,
Impression Products v Lexmark International ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
iPhone ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Samsung ,
Smartphones ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods
In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more
On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, requiring a “continuous exercise of...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more
7/2/2016
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Final Judgment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition filed by Merck & Cie for rehearing en banc of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
4/28/2016
/ Agency Deference ,
Appeals ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standard of Review ,
Substantial Evidence Standard
Patent owners continue to face an uphill battle at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. According to U.S. Patent Office statistics as of December 31, 2015, a majority (72%) of the 529 Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) proceeding to...more
On December 9, 2015, the Federal Circuit ruled in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company that vesting the Patent Office with power to take back previously conferred patent rights through inter partes review does not...more
Yesterday the Federal Circuit ruled in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (here) that vesting the Patent Office with power to take back previously-conferred patent rights through inter partes review does not violate...more
On March 31 we posted about the Patent Office rolling out a series of rulemakings for improving post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) pursuant to public feedback to a Request for Comments...more
8/24/2015
/ Additional Discovery ,
Claim Construction ,
Comment Period ,
Confidential Information ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Regulations ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Regulation ,
Rule 11 ,
USPTO
On June 16, the Federal Circuit issued its first-ever reversal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an America Invents Act post-grant proceeding. The opinion, drafted by Chief Judge Prost and joined by CAFC Judge...more
For only the fourth time in its history, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has granted a motion to amend in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, finding all substitute claims proposed by the patent owner...more
Last Friday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied four Sandoz Inc. petitions for instituting inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. 8,455,524 (IPR2015-00005), U.S. 7,612,102 (IPR2015-00006), U.S. 7,659,290...more