The Federal Circuit yesterday issued an opinion in In re: Smith Int’l, Inc., No. 2016-2303 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) reversing an affirmance by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the rejection of several claims of U.S....more
On August 25, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential opinion in Ex Parte McAward, reaffirming the Patent Office’s use of a lower pre-issuance threshold for indefiniteness distinct from the Supreme...more
9/20/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Indefiniteness ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Reaffirmation ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit has now reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc. finding claims 1 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,567,967 (the “‘967 patent”) as being “not supported by...more
Today, the Federal Circuit, vacated-in-part and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s obviousness determination regarding a Securus Technologies patent directed to systems and methods for reviewing conversation data...more
4/26/2017
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Vacated
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) the importance of explaining its reasoning when invalidating patent claims....more
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
On August 3, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a post-grant review decision that bears one striking similarity to its previous post-grant review decisions, namely invalidation of claims under Alice Corp. Pty. v....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
When it comes to Enfish, the PTAB may have just indicated that it prefers to cut bait. In Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-0021 (May 31, 2016), the PTAB held that U.S. Patent No 6,321,201 was void under Alice...more
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
This week the Federal Circuit handed a positive development to Patent Owners working to keep their patent rights before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In an opinion issued on Tuesday in Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Case...more
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
Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) added a recent order to its list of Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices. See MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB July 15, 2015). ...more
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
On June 15, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued Notice in the Federal Register announcing a new pilot program, the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot. Under the program an appellant may have an ex...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
Today the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) posted on its website Revision 14 of its Standard Operating Procedure 1 (SOP 1). SOP 1 covers the assignment of Administrative Patent Judges to merits panels, interlocutory...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently announced the addition of its March 26, 2015 decision in Dell, Inc. et al. v. Electronics and Telecomms. Res. Inst., IPR2015-00549 (“the ‘549 IPR”) to its online list of...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