In yesterday’s en banc decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp., Nos. 15-1944, -1945 & -1946 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018), the en banc Federal Circuit addressed issues regarding judicial review of the PTAB’s time-bar...more
1/10/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
USPTO
In a pair of near identical decisions issued on December 19, 2017, an expanded PTAB panel found that the Regents of the University of Minnesota had waived its defense of sovereign immunity by filing actions against the...more
1/9/2018
/ Educational Institutions ,
Eleventh Amendment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Universities ,
USPTO
In a closely followed case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SAS Institute Inc., a cross-office, cross-practice Jones Day team has challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice to elect to institute...more
On November 16, 2017, the PTAB announced its revised Standard Operating Procedure for decisions remanded from the Federal Circuit for further proceedings. In SOP 9, the PTAB provides guidance to panels and parties that...more
In IPR2014-01198, the PTAB found that the patent owner failed to prove that the patented invention was conceived prior to the date of the prior art, and thus concluded that the patent was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit...more
In yesterday’s decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 15-1177 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017) (en banc), the Federal Circuit issued five opinions, spanning 148 pages, addressing the question of who bears the burden of proving...more
10/6/2017
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Claim Amendments ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
USPTO
In a decision dated August 17, 2017, the Board denied institution of Kingston Technology Company, Inc.’s petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, 23-28, and 36-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the...more
The patent statute requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to issue a final written decision within one year of instituting an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The recent case of Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeo...more
In instituting IPR of a particular patent, the PTAB found that the patent was not entitled to its priority claim, thus opening it up to invalidity attacks. However, because the PTAB’s decision was not being challenged in the...more
Who makes the country’s patent laws—Congress, or the Patent Office? A recent petition for certiorari filed by SAS Institute, Inc.—represented by a team of Jones Day lawyers—asks the Supreme Court to decide that question in...more
In a precedential opinion dated March 14, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, holding that in finding a claim anticipated under 35 USC § 102, the Board cannot “fill in missing limitations” simply because a skilled...more