On July 15, 2019, the USPTO released a second update to Trial Practice Guide for AIA proceedings. The 64-page update reflects some of the recent opinions that the Board has designated as precedential and includes helpful...more
7/30/2019
/ Administrative Procedure ,
America Invents Act ,
Claim Construction ,
Discovery ,
Expert Testimony ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO
The inventor on the patent, Dr. Cheriton, was employed by Cisco as a technical advisor and chief product architect at the time he filed the application that led to the patent. Dr. Cheriton assigned all rights to the...more
RPX petitioned for inter partes review of ChanBond’s ’822 patent. The Board instituted the IPR and determined that RPX did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable. RPX appealed the final written decision to the...more
3/14/2019
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Estoppel ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Reputational Injury ,
Right To Appeal ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
Statutory Rights
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
2/28/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Adverse Judgments ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Assignor Estoppel ,
Burden of Proof ,
Burden-Shifting ,
Claim Construction ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventors ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Obviousness ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Partial Institution ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Private Property ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Right to a Jury ,
Right To Appeal ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Seventh Amendment ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Standing ,
Time-Barred Claims
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu—which did away with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) partial-institution practice—parties and the Patent Office alike have been trying to...more
On April 30, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a “Chat with the Chief” webinar to discuss the impact of SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018). The webinar was widely attended, drawing about 700...more
On April 26, 2018, the Patent Office issued initial guidance on the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, 16-969 (Apr. 24, 2018). Two days earlier, the Supreme Court in SAS struck down...more
By a majority of 7-2, the Supreme Court has ruled that inter partes review is a valid exercise of statutory authority vested in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,...more
4/25/2018
/ Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Due Process ,
Franchises ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Private Property ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
Takings Clause
The Supreme Court has ruled by a narrow majority of 5-4 that the Patent Office’s regulation allowing for partial institution decisions in inter partes review is foreclosed by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). SAS Institute Inc....more
4/25/2018
/ Administrative Procedure ,
America Invents Act ,
Chevron Deference ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Discretionary Functions ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SAS Institute Inc v Matal ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC (“Dell II”), No. 2017-1101 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2018) -
On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the Board’s refusal to consider new arguments that had been made...more
4/5/2018
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Cross-Appeals ,
Dell ,
Due Process ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Remand
The PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire patent life cycle in a global portfolio.
This month we tackle three important...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
3/19/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
America Invents Act ,
Anticipation ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Proof ,
Claim Amendments ,
Claim Construction ,
Due Process ,
Ex Partes Reexamination ,
Expert Testimony ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Incorporation by Reference ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Notice Requirements ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Vacated
Is there a growing split in the Federal Circuit on the proper remedy where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) fails to carry its burden? The recent precedential decision of In re Hodges, __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 817248...more
2/27/2018
/ Anticipation ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Claim Construction ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Remedies ,
Reversal ,
Substantial Evidence
The PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both...more
On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 2015-1944, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018). The issue before the en banc Court was the...more
1/25/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Claim Amendments ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Motion to Amend ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Privity of Contract ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims
The PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both...more
1/18/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Design Patent ,
Due Process ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
USPTO
On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 2015-1944, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018). The issue before the en banc Court was the...more
1/9/2018
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
En Banc Review ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Privity of Contract ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims
On November 16, 2017 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office posted a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) addressing the conduct of cases remanded from the Federal Circuit to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). New “SOP...more
The Perspectives on the PTAB Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both sides...more
On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Oil States Energy Svcs, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 where the Court will consider the constitutionality of IPR proceedings. The Oil States case...more
On November 16, 2017 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office posted a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) addressing the conduct of cases remanded from the Federal Circuit to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). New “SOP...more
11/17/2017
/ Additional Discovery ,
Administrative Hearings ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Admissible Evidence ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Briefs ,
CAFC ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Rules ,
Remand ,
Standard Operating Procedures
The Perspectives on the PTAB Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both sides...more
11/17/2017
/ America Invents Act ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Expert Witness ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Follow-On Patent Petitions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
SAS Institute Inc v Matal ,
SCOTUS
For patent owners, the PTAB’s use of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” or “BRI” is often frustrating and sometimes fatal. That appeared to be the case for the patent owner Smith International, Inc., the owner of U.S....more
The PTAB Newsletter is designed to be a valuable resource for all stakeholders in the global patent arena throughout the patent life cycle. To that end, articles will provide perspectives from both sides of the “v” with an...more
After several months of consideration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal has concluded that, under the current rules, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is not...more