Latest Posts › Appeals

Share:

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

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

Federal Circuit Affirms Despite Claim Construction Error

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

PTAB Retains Jurisdiction Of Expired Patents

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

Two Separate Analyses: Nonobviousness vs Enablement

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

Federal Circuit Remands Based On Inadequate Explanation

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

Two Many IPRs: Different References Insufficient for Parallel IPRs

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

Thickness Arguments Cross the Line for Federal Circuit

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

PTAB Fee Increases in 2025

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

Lack of Injury In Fact Scuttles Appeal

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

Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeals As Moot

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

“Known” Claim Elements Alone Insufficient for Motivation to Combine

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

Common Inventorship And Technology Insufficient For 325(d) Denial

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

Coordinate Arguments To Avoid Procedural Bars

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

Estoppel Estopped for Remanded Claims

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

Staying Still: District Court Extends Stay Pending Appeal

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

Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed

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

Supreme Court Holds Institution Time Bar Decisions Cannot Be Reviewed

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

Update: Parties, Government Seek Rehearing in Arthrex

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

Updates on Arthrex Developments

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

Timeline of Arthrex Developments

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew excited and disrupted the patent world... Inter partes review (IPR) reshaped patent law and patent litigation this decade after the America Invents Act took effect....more

Parties Seek To Preserve Arthrex Rights Despite Waiver Ruling

Following on Judge Newman’s dissent in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., parties are seeking to preserve their rights by challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding that a party’s failure to raise...more

Federal Circuit Requests Additional Arthrex Appointments Clause Briefing

Following up on a November 4th oral argument (accessible here) that focused on the Arthrex Appointments Clause issue, the Federal Circuit has requested additional briefing from Polaris, Kingston, and the U.S. regarding the...more

PTAB Determines Parallel ITC Record Did Not Create Tactical Advantage

In a recent decision, the PTAB decided to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,937,394 B2 despite Patent Owner’s claims that Petitioner engaged in gamesmanship and asserted references and combinations...more

PTAB Abused Discretion in Denying Request to File Motion for Additional Discovery

In a recent appeal of two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Board abused its discretion in denying...more

Patent Owner in Standard-Essential Patent Pool Has Standing to Appeal

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,917,772 (“the ‘772 Patent”), which is owned by Infobridge and is directed to encoding and decoding video data. The...more

37 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