Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) declined to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding despite the Petitioner’s alleged failure to identify all the real parties-in-interest (RPIs)....more
The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2022 through the end of January 2022 (Oct. 1, 2021 through January 31, 2022) stands at 63% (279 instituted, 164 denied) compared to 59% in the previous fiscal year....more
The patent fight between Caltech and Broadcom/Apple made waves this month when the Federal Circuit vacated the $1.1 billion infringement award that Caltech had won in district court....more
2/22/2022
/ Apple ,
Broadcom ,
Estoppel ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Vacated
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more
2/10/2022
/ 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ,
Apple ,
CAFC ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Statutory Interpretation
This blog has previously discussed PTAB’s exercise of discretion under Section 325(d). Sometimes the PTAB has invoked Section 325(d) to deny institution; sometimes it has declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter...more
The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2022 through the end of November 2021 (Oct. 1, 2021 through Nov. 30, 2021) stands at 66% (138 instituted, 71 denied) compared to 59% in the previous fiscal year....more
Biofrontera AG (“Petitioner”) filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the petition during the preliminary phase of the proceedings. Here, DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) had not yet filed a Preliminary Response, and...more
A recent PTAB decision in Sattler Tech Corp. v. Lyu represents an important reminder to carefully review the procedural and substantive requirements for filing a petition for an AIA trial, especially when dealing with...more
On November 30, the PTAB entered its final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. 2BCom, LLC on the patentability of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,127,210 (the ‘210 patent).
...more
Recently, Cloudflare Inc. succeeded in convincing the PTAB to institute in IPR2021-00969 against a Sable Network, Inc.’s patent directed toward data flow. While the institution itself is not out of the ordinary—the...more
12/8/2021
/ Crowdsourcing ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Portfolios ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The statistics from the PTAB for FY2021 are in, and the total PTAB petitions filed in FY2021 are down a bit from the previous year. A total of 1,401 petitions were filed—IPR (1308) and PGR (93)—compared to 1513 in FY2020,...more
In an inter partes review (IPR), the scope of discovery is expressly stated in the C.F.R. and additional discovery must either be agreed upon by the parties or granted by the Board when it “is necessary in the interest of...more
On October 26, 2021, Chief Administrative Patent Judge (“APJ”) Boalick lifted a May 1, 2020 stay issued by the PTAB pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of Arthrex in which 103 cases were placed in “administrative...more
11/11/2021
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Stays ,
Vacated
Introducing evidence in a motion to file a reply to a patent owner’s preliminary response without the PTAB’s authorization may result in denial and expungement. A recent motion met such a fate in Ice Castles, LLC v....more
Patent Owner (Provisur Technologies) requested authorization to file a motion to strike portions of Petitioner’s (Weber, Inc.) Reply and certain evidence submitted therewith, which Petitioner opposed. Patent Owner argued...more
Rule 42.23(b) is clear, “A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to extend the Motion to Amend (MTA) pilot program. This program provides additional options for a patent owner...more
The PTAB’s Standard Operating Procedure 2 permits the public to submit nominations for PTAB decisions that an individual believes should be designated as precedential or informative, or to suggest that a decision previously...more
Ocado Group (“Petitioner”) filed a petition requesting a post-grant review of a claim from U.S. Patent No. 10,696,478 (’478 Patent) owned by AutoStore Technology (“Patent Owner”). The Board concluded that the Petitioner did...more
When filing an IPR, petitioners should be careful not to take for granted one of the most fundamental aspects of challenging validity in this forum: Whether or not the relied upon references qualify as prior art. Pursuant to...more
In Microsurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, No. PGR2021-00026, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held that disclaimed claims should be considered for...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Microsoft Corporation v. FG SRC, LLC, No. 2020-1928 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2021), is a stark reminder that an IPR petitioner must always set forth its grounds in its petition with...more
This blog has previously discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, — F.3d —, No. 2020-1937, 2021 WL 2176796 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021). See Telepharma Disconnect: Federal...more
A Sotera-style stipulation has once again convinced the PTAB to not exercise its discretion to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In Ocado Group PLC v. AutoStore Technology AS,...more
On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision. This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure...more
6/30/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Review ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interim Measures ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO