On March 4, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) regarding Motion To Amend (“MTA”) Practice and Procedures...more
3/25/2024
/ Comment Period ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pilot Programs ,
Proposed Rules ,
USPTO
On October 6, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) making changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) internal circulation and review of...more
11/20/2023
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
America Invents Act ,
Comment Period ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
On May 12, 2023, the Intel v. VLSI chronicle continued as the PTAB issued a final written decision holding that all of the challenged claims of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (“the ’759 patent”) were unpatentable as...more
Petitioners should be cautious of introducing a new theory in a Petitioner Reply before the PTAB. On February 7, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) entered a final written decision declining to find any claims...more
On December 22, 2022, Director Kathi Vidal issued a pair of decisions in the OpenSky v. VLSI saga, dismissing OpenSky Industries LLC (“OpenSky”) and Patent Quality Assurance LCC (“PQA”) from their respective challenges of...more
In the latest development of OpenSky Industries v. VLSI Technology, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal has ordered sua sponte Director review of a PTAB panel’s decision on remand to institute OpenSky’s IPR challenge to a patent owned...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied a Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery. Scientific Design Co., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., IPR2021-01537, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2022). In an inter partes review...more
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Director Vidal is initiating sua sponte review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions to institute inter partes review of two patents owned by VLSI Technology LLC,...more
Typically, a Motion for Joinder to an earlier post-grant review (“PGR”) must be filed within one month of the institution of the earlier PGR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b).While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) does have...more
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more
2/10/2022
/ 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ,
Apple ,
CAFC ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Statutory Interpretation
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied a Motion for Additional Discovery because the movant could not prove beyond mere speculation that the requested documents would be useful to show witness scripting....more
1/24/2022
/ Additional Discovery ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Garmin Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Scope of Discovery Requests
Introducing evidence in a motion to file a reply to a patent owner’s preliminary response without the PTAB’s authorization may result in denial and expungement. A recent motion met such a fate in Ice Castles, LLC v....more