The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently thwarted an attempt by big tech companies such as Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel, to rid themselves of discretionary denials under the Fintiv factors. While these...more
A recent decision by a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel in Canadian Solar Inc., et al v. The Solaria Corporation may have opened the door for aggrieved parties to seek rehearing for any reason, rather than the...more
In earlier blogs, we discussed when to amend and when not to amend claims in an inter partes review (“IPR”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). Below are guidelines on the procedural aspects of filing a motion to amend...more
The Federal Circuit recently found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) violates a patent owner’s procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when construing a disputed claim term by omitting...more
When confronted with instituted IPRs, Patent Owners should identify and exploit issues that the Petition glossed over and bring those to the attention of the Board. This will highlight for the Board important issues that the...more
Arguing against material constructions proffered by an IPR petition is a basic building block of the patent owner’s preliminary response. Obviously, patent owners must investigate and advocate for claim constructions for...more
Building on Tip #4, one effective way to avoid institution and not address facts is to point out shortcomings in the petition's application of KSR when asserting motivation to combine for an obviousness analysis. The Patent...more
11/13/2020
/ Claim Construction ,
Claim Limitations ,
Denial of Institution ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art
Venue selection is a critical component to any patent enforcement strategy, even before the inception of the PTAB as we know it today. Venue now has even greater importance, as the speed of your patent case (i.e. time to...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has designated two key institution decisions as “Informative.” With these informative decisions, the PTAB has provided guidance on how the PTAB will apply efficiency and fairness...more
In a rare reversal, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) reassessed the Fintiv factors in a decision on a petition for rehearing of a previous decision denying institution of an inter partes review (“IPR”). The PTAB had...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently sent a warning to alleged infringers not to wait for the one year deadline to file IPR petitions, or risk discretionary denial. On May 13, 2020, the PTAB exercised its...more
On Friday, May 1, 2020, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) paused all activity in the significant number of PTAB cases remanded to it from the Federal Circuit...more
On May 5, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated one decision as precedential and removed the precedential designation on another. The newly-designated precedential opinion lays out factors that the PTAB...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates...more
On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit held that while assignor estoppel is applicable in district court proceedings, petitions for inter partes review continue to not be subject to the equitable remedy. Assignor estoppel is an...more
In an April 13, 2020, decision, the Federal Circuit held that neither a voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), nor a stay of a patent lawsuit pending the results of a patent reexamination,...more
The Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) recently rejected a rehearing request from a petitioner where institution was denied because of the likelihood that a district court...more
On Thursday, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must give the parties proper notice if considering a sua sponte theory of unpatentability in relation to a motion to amend. In doing so,...more
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions as precedential and one as informative. These decisions concern PTAB’s discretion to deny institution...more
This week the en banc Federal Circuit declined to revisit a panel ruling that found the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) violates the Appointments Clause of...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has recently reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) that it may not rely on evidence and arguments that fall outside the scope of the instituted grounds...more
When former President Barack Obama signed the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act into law on Sept. 16, 2011, the patent system in the United States underwent one of its most sweeping and significant overhauls. The AIA replaced...more
n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
11/4/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Principle Officers ,
Remand ,
Removal At-Will ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
Earlier this week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proposed rule changes for amending patents in AIA proceedings. The proposed rule changes would apply to inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review...more
On Friday, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel, colloquially referred to as “the POP,” ruled that the one-year window to file inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions begins once a complaint alleging infringement is...more