Latest Posts › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Share:

Section 101 Plays a Role in IPRs

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1686 (Fed. Cir., July 22, 2020). Uniloc owned a patent entitled “System and Method for Adjustable Licensing of Digital Products.” In an IPR, petitioners Hulu and...more

IPR Decisions Are to Rely On The Adversarial Process

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, IPR2018-00600 (July 6, 2020) - Designated Precedential on July 6, 2020 - Petitioner Hunting Titan challenged Patent Owner Dynaenergetics’ claims based upon anticipation...more

The Obligation to Submit Agreements in IPRs Is Broad

DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC, IPR2018-01412, -01525 (June 14, 2019) - On June 11, 2020, the PTAB designated as precedential its 2019 decision in DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC. The decision concerns the scope of...more

GE Denied

General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, fka United Technologies Corporation, Case No. 19-1012. On February 24, 2020, we reported on GE’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court....more

Another Non-Appealable Issue

Esip Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, Appeal No. 2019-1659 (Fed. Cir., May 19, 2020) - Puzhen petitioned for an IPR against Esip’s patent relating to a combining of germicidal protection and aromatic diffusion in an...more

Arthrex and Reexamination

Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1671 (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2020). Inter partes reexamination was a non-trial procedure that allowed third parties to participate in patent reexamination, and has now been...more

Another Arthrex Limit

Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1261 (Fed Cir., May 6, 2020). John P. Isacson - On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order holding that IPR petitioners cannot...more

Arthrex Is Not for Everyone

Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2020). - On January 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order that denied IPR petitioner Ciena’s motion to have a judgment...more

The Federal Circuit Finds Article III Standing

Grit Energy Solutions, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1063 (Fed. Cir.. April 30, 2020). Grit Energy filed a petition for inter partes review against Oren’s U.S. Patent No. 8,585,341 pertaining to systems of...more

Article III Standing Strikes Again

Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Appeal No. 2018-2273 (Fed. Cir., April 23, 2020). Argentum and other petitioners filed IPRs against Novartis’ patent related to methods of treating...more

IPR Institution Is Still Unappealable

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To Call Technologies, LP, et al., 590 U.S. ___, Case No. 18-916 (slip op., April 20, 2020) - John P. Isacson IPR petitioner Thryv challenged patent owner Click-To-Call’s patent and several claims were...more

No Notice, No Decision

Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Appeal No. 2019-1262 (Fed. Cir., April 9, 2020) - The PTAB has never shown an affinity for permitting amendments in IPRs. This appeal marks the second time that a proposed amendment in an IPR was...more

IPRs and Patent Prosecution Are Not the Same

Ex parte Grillo-Lopez, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (April 7, 2020). On April 7, 2020, The PTAB denied rehearing in Ex parte Grillo-Lopez (August 28, 2019) and issued a precedential decision explaining the denial. ...more

A Bite in the Apple

Apple Inc. v. California Institute of Technology, Appeal Nos. 2019-1580, -1581 (Fed. Cir., March 5, 2020). In January of this year, a jury awarded the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) $837,801,178 for Apple’s...more

U.S. Government in Search of Arthrex Reversal

Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image...more

Standing To Appeal

General Electric v. United Technologies Corp. General Electric petitioned for an IPR against a United Technologies patent relating to gas turbine engines. General Electric was unsuccessful against certain claims, and...more

A Rare Rehearing by the PTAB

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00860 (February 7, 2020) (Paper No. 15). Samsung filed two IPR petitions against NuCurrent’s U.S. Patent No. 8,680,960, which related to a multi-layer-multi-turn...more

The PTAB Definitely Cannot do That

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Priusa Engineering Corp., Appeal Nos. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020). Samsung filed an IPR petition against claims 1-4, 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 owned by Priusa....more

The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Still Counts

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC et al., Appeal No. 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir., January 30, 2020). Google filed an IPR against Philips’ patent relating to a method of forming a media presentation on a client device from...more

IPR Estoppel Strikes Again

Wasica Finance GmbH et al. v. Schrader Int’l, Inc. et al., C.A. 13-1353-LPS (D. Del. January 14, 2020) (publicly available on January 21, 2020)....more

IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020) - On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on...more

The PTAB’s Erroneous Presumption

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2018-2024, -2025 (Fed. Cir. December 18, 2019). SRAM owned two patents pertaining to bicycle chainrings, which are toothed disks that engage bicycle chains. Fox filed inter...more

Vacatur and Remand Is Not for Everyone

Customedia Tech., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.., Appeal Nos. 2018-2239, -2240, -2310, 2019-1000, -1001, -1002, -1027 and -1029 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 1, 2019). The day after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Arthrex, Inc....more

The PTAB and the Constitution

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more

Updated Guidance on Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility

On October 17, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a 22-page updated guidance document on subject matter eligibility under 35 USC §101.  Subject matter eligibility is becoming increasingly important in the...more

32 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide