More than a decade after the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), the Federal Circuit has issued its first opinion addressing an AIA derivation proceeding. In Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, the court clarified...more
9/26/2025
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
CAFC ,
Derivation Proceeding ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Interference Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents
In a Director Review, the Acting Director reversed a panel decision to discretionarily deny an IPR under § 325(d). The Acting Director held that the PTAB’s own findings in two previous IPRs sufficiently proved Examiner error...more
9/12/2025
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Appeals ,
Fashion Industry ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Nike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Sketchers ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
On July 29, 2025, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick circulated a memorandum to Members of the PTAB entitled “Final Written Decision Procedures for AIA Trial Proceedings.” ...more
9/8/2025
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
A Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) recently modified the PTAB’s construction of the claim term “workload” and remanded, giving Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) another opportunity to challenge a processor patent....more
6/27/2025
/ Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Authority ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
The PTAB has published its monthly statistics wrap up for April 2025. As expected, those statistics show a significant decline in the institution rate compared to the first six months of the fiscal year. In those first six...more
6/9/2025
/ Appeals ,
Government Agencies ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Regulatory Agencies ,
USPTO
On May 16, 2025, USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart released the first four discretionary denial decisions under the PTAB’s new process. Under the new process, the parties separately brief discretionary denial issues...more
6/4/2025
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Authority ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more
4/11/2025
/ Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Reversal
The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision deeming an integrated circuit connector patent unpatentable for obviousness, despite concluding that the Board’s claim construction was erroneous. The Court also rejected a...more
The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that...more
3/10/2025
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jurisdiction ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement. Duration Media...more
2/25/2025
/ Appeals ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
Palo Alto Networks (PAN) filed a petition for inter partes review of Centripetal Networks’ patent—U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903—which is directed to a computing system for correlating packets in communication networks with a...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”) where Petitioner later filed a parallel petition against the same claims of the same patent. Shenzhen Root Tech. Co.,...more
1/23/2025
/ Appeals ,
Denial of Institution ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO
When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” ...more
Petitioners may soon need to check their account balances, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is raising patent fees across the board, effective January 19, 2025. 89 Fed. Reg. 91898....more
The Federal Circuit dismissed Platinum Optics Technology Inc.’s (PTOT) appeal from an IPR decision, finding the challenged claims of Viavi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369 not unpatentable, because PTOT failed to establish an...more
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
In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in holding that certain claims of the Virtek patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734) were unpatentable as obvious. See...more
The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had...more
In a recent decision, 25 F.4th 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of the PTAB’s decision that estopped a Petitioner from maintaining a third IPR that challenged the same...more
In General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00007-RWS, ECF No. 128 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to strike invalidity defenses as barred by IPR estoppel for...more
District courts commonly stay patent litigation cases pending inter parties review (IPR) that assesses the validity of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Such stay may be lifted or extended...more
Recently, we reported about the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the AIA’s “no appeal” provision in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) means that the PTAB’s decision not to institute IPR because a petition is time barred under 35 U.S.C....more
This week, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the AIA’s “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs, L.P., No. 18-916, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr....more
4/27/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
January 17 Update: On January 17, each of the parties filed responses to the rehearing petitions -
As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew...more
1/20/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Remand ,
Statutory Authority ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit and the patent world continues to grapple with the court’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Since our last updates, the parties in Arthrex and other cases have continued the push for en banc...more
1/20/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Remand ,
USPTO ,
Vacated