On June 21, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued a memorandum concerning the PTAB’s practice of determining whether to institute an AIA post-grant proceeding in view of the Fintiv factors. The memorandum is in part a result of...more
7/15/2022
/ America Invents Act ,
Discretionary Functions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Investigations ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
This is a follow up to our earlier post about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2021 decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that PTAB APJs were unconstitutionally appointed because they exercised “principal...more
8/11/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
On May 5, 2020 the Federal Circuit formally barred petitioners from seeking Arthrex remands. The Court issued a precedential order clarifying that only qualifying patent owners may seek the Arthrex remedy. Petitioners, unlike...more
On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc in Arthrex. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, Dkt. 115. The court held in Arthrex...more
On Monday, March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Arthrex appeal that found PTAB ALJs to be unconstitutional appointments. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the PTAB has discretion regarding whether to institute a covered business method review if the arguments presented in the petition are the same, or substantially the same, as those previously...more
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, where the Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must issue a final written decision as to any patent claim...more
In a recent order, Administrative Law Judge Lord denied Respondents CSL Behring LLC, CSL Behring GMBH, and CSL Behring Recombinant Facility AG (“CSL Behring”) motion to compel discovery from Complainants Bioverativ Inc.,...more
1/2/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Discovery ,
Inequitable Conduct ,
Motion to Compel ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 337 ,
USPTO
The ITC has dealt a significant blow to the use of Inter Partes Review as a defense to a Section 337 investigation. In an order issued this week, the Commission denied a request to stay remedial orders that are currently on...more
7/28/2017
/ Appeals ,
Cease and Desist Orders ,
Cisco ,
Exclusion Orders ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Section 337 ,
USPTO
It is not always possible for a party seeking to challenge a patent in an IPR to find prior art patents or printed publications that the USPTO has not already considered. Often the best available prior art comes from the...more