The USPTO has extended the public comment deadline in order to afford all stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in on the subject matter eligibility of AI inventions....more
9/23/2024
/ Artificial Intelligence ,
Comment Period ,
Deadlines ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Machine Learning ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Public Comment ,
USPTO
On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more
On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal,...more
In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more
In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports for...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
In a sua sponte Director Review, USPTO Director Vidal vacated an adverse judgement against Patent Owner for Patent Owner’s failure to submit a mandatory notice of information or file a preliminary response to a Petition...more
The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
8/21/2024
/ Claim Construction ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mobile Devices ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Prior Art
Koss filed a patent infringement suit against Bose asserting the ’155, ’934, and ’025 patents, after which Bose petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents before the PTAB. The district court case was stayed...more
8/13/2024
/ Appeals ,
Final Judgment ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mootness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed-in-part and remanded-in-part the Board’s decision in the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (the “’096 patent”), and affirmed the Board’s decision as to the cross...more
The Situation: Concerns that uncertain and unpredictable patent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence thwarts U.S. economic and technological advancements are especially acute in the fast advancing AI space. Stakeholders...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently issued a protective order settling a dispute over the scope of a proposed prosecution bar. Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 23-756, Dkt. Nos. 66, 68...more
On May 6th, 2024, the PTAB declined Ubiquiti Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request to institute inter partes review. Ubiquiti Inc. v. XR Communications LLC D/B/A Vivato Tech., IPR2024-00148, Paper 12 (May 6, 2024). The PTAB...more
Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...more
On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071,...more
Those following this blog knew change was coming to design patent obviousness in the LKQ v. GM decision by the en banc Federal Circuit. In its May 21, 2024 decision, the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test...more
6/20/2024
/ Design Patent ,
Examiners ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
6/17/2024
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
On May 20, the Federal Circuit held fees incurred in voluntary parallel IPR proceedings were not recoverable under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Dragon Intell. Prop. LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C., No. 2022-1621, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. May...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. In certain circumstances, the PTAB will discretionarily deny a petition because another petition challenging the same patent...more
During an inter partes review (IPR) initiated by Ingenico, the PTAB found certain claims from three patents held by IOEngine to be unpatentable. The patents at issue are directed to secure communications for portable devices...more
The PTO has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding who may represent parties in PTAB post-grant trials. The proposal is part of the USPTO’s wider initiative to expand access to practice before the Office. ...more
5/30/2024
/ America Invents Act ,
Client Services ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Pro Hac Vice ,
USPTO
The PTAB recently denied 10x Genomics, Inc.’s (Petitioner) IPR petition (IPR2023-01299) against President and Fellows of Harvard College (Patent Owner) challenging claims of U.S. Pat. No. 11,098,303. Patent Owner identified...more
The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more
On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more
5/10/2024
/ Denial of Institution ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Vacated
On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues. The Notice addresses stakeholder feedback responsive to the...more
5/3/2024
/ Comment Period ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Rules ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
USPTO