Judge Wolson in the District of Delaware recently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent is directed to cochlear implants. A single dependent...more
In an August 18 memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding agency guidance on the proper role of “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The memorandum...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated an order, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020), as precedential. The order outlines six non-dispositive factors the PTAB will...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) recently designated two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative, marking its first precedential and informative designations for 2020. In two of the...more
The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can institute inter partes review (IPR) on a ground not advanced by the petitioner, as well as whether the general knowledge of a person...more
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
2/14/2020
/ Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Section 112