The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...more
3/14/2024
/ Intel ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Wireless Industry
On remand from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB ruled that a patentee’s certificate of correction—issued after the Board invalidated the claims in a final written decision—could not be applied retroactively.
After the IPR...more
In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster L.L.C., No. IPR2016-01435, (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2017), the petitioner (HPC) challenged certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,497,691, owned by HPC’s competitor, Frymaster. The ’691 patent relates...more
The Board has broad discretion to determine how much weight should be given to inventor testimony, but as long as the testimony does not relate to the inventor’s opinion about the meaning of a claim term, there is no basis...more
In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing. In DePuy Synthes Products,...more
4/2/2019
/ Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Live Streaming ,
New Evidence ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Testimonial Statements ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
Witnesses
Amazon.com, Inc. and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Amazon”) filed a petition for inter partes review challenging the validity of AC Technologies S.A.’s (“AC”) U.S. Patent No. 7,904,680. See IPR2015-01802. Amazon asserted...more
In a recently published decision, the PTAB held that Samsung’s petition for inter partes review of a patent owned by The SEVEN Networks LLC was not time-barred under § 315(b). Samsung filed its petition less than one year...more
As the boundaries of estoppel post-SAS continue to unfold, one court has found that if a petitioner’s time for appealing a PTAB partial-institution decision had not yet run out at the time that SAS was handed down, then the...more
A few weeks ago, we posted an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (see Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Avoid Adverse Judgment...more
In a split decision that drew separate opinions from each of the panel members, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decision to enter an adverse judgment against a patentee, even though the patentee had properly...more
In 2016, the PTAB changed the limits for the length of certain filings in post grant proceedings, including petitions and responses, from limits based on the number of pages to limits based on the number of words. The USPTO...more