In an increasingly rare exercise of discretion, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under Fintiv in Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2023-00587. The PTAB reasoned that...more
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more
11/10/2023
/ Evidentiary Standards ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
The PTAB recently granted institution of inter partes review despite the Patent Owner not receiving the petition for the proceeding until three business days after the statutory deadline. See Kahoot! ASA and Kahoot Edu, Inc.,...more
11/6/2023
/ Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Service of Process ,
Statutory Deadlines ,
USPTO
The PTAB requires that all petitioners in IPR and PGR proceedings disclose the real party(ies)-in-interest. While that might seem like a mere formality, a false disclosure can lead to very harsh consequences....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
10/27/2023
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interference Claims ,
Inventors ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art ,
Software ,
USPTO ,
Zynga
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
10/20/2023
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
On March 15, 2022, Facet Technologies, LLC (Plaintiff/Patent Owner) filed an infringement suit against LifeScan, Inc. (Defendant/Petitioner) in U.S. District Court for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,840,635 (the ’635...more
On August 24, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of inter partes review in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. and remanded the case for further proceedings. ...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently published a revised PTAB Oral Hearing Guide (August 2023) updating prior guidance on hearings. The revised Guide includes changes to: 1. Remote participation in PTAB...more
Institution of an IPR is automatically barred if the “petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner…is served with the complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35...more
The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to determining the pitch of roofs after finding that Petitioner failed to directly challenge the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s priority...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
On July 17, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review petition based on the stature of a related U.S. District Court of...more
Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In recent decision 3M Company v. Bay Materials, the Board denied 3M Company’s (“Petitioner”) second Petition for inter partes review (“Second Petition”) after exercising its discretion under § 314(a) and finding that each of...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) recently denied inter partes review (IPR) of an electrocardiography monitor patent under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), finding that the same or substantially the same prior art or...more
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
Motions to amend (MTA) are becoming a more frequently used tool for patent owners litigating before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). When a patent is being challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant...more
The PTAB recently exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to deny institution of inter partes review for inefficient use of the PTAB’s time and resources notwithstanding that the petitioner met the threshold for...more
Congress implemented the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) to “establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that [would] improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.” ...more
The USPTO continues to seek public feedback on PTAB procedures and potential rule changes. In addition to soliciting comments on the many proposed rule changes announced on April 21, 2023, the USPTO also recently issued a...more
6/26/2023
/ America Invents Act ,
Comment Period ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Rules ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
USPTO
In a rare exercise of authority, the PTAB issued sanctions against a Patent Owner for failure to meet its duty of candor and good faith by withholding information relevant to the patentability of challenged and substitute...more
On May 12, 2023, the Intel v. VLSI chronicle continued as the PTAB issued a final written decision holding that all of the challenged claims of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (“the ’759 patent”) were unpatentable as...more
On May 10, 2023, a PTAB Panel excused the late filings of the Patent Owner and allowed over thirty exhibits and a Corrected Patent Owner Response (“CPOR”) to be submitted into the record in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v....more
The Board exercised discretion under § 314 to deny inter partes review in view of co-pending district court litigation. In the Institution Decision, the Board evaluated the Fintiv factors in light of the USPTO Director’s...more