Latest Posts › Prior Art

Share:

PTAB Voluntary Search Disclosure Declarations: A New Factor Supporting Institution

On November 17, 2025, USPTO Director John Squires issued a memorandum introducing a new procedure allowing petitioners to submit a voluntary Search Disclosure Declaration (SDD) that explains the petitioner’s search strategy...more

Prosecution Error Evidence & Timing Considerations Sends IPR Forward

The USPTO’s Acting Deputy Director, Coke Morgan Stewart, issued a decision on October 3, 2025, declining to exercise discretion to deny institution in Carbyne, Inc. v. Tritech Software Systems, IPR2025-00959, Paper 11 (Oct. 3...more

Collateral Estoppel May Not Apply When Claim Interpretation Standards Differ

In its recent decision in RØDE Microphones, LLC et. al. vs. Zaxcom, Inc., the PTAB declined to apply collateral estoppel based on prior post-grant proceedings because the prior proceedings had applied a different standard of...more

Proposed Rulemaking Aims to Change Access to IPR Proceedings

On October 17, 2025, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“Notice”) regarding the rules of practice for inter partes review before the PTAB. The proposed rules do not apply to post grant review petitions,...more

PTAB Issues Notice of Discretionary Denial Rulemaking

On October 17th, the PTAB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding criteria for the Office to apply when making discretionary denial determinations....more

Skechers IPR Still Kicking After Director Review

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

Subsequent Challenge Does Not Justify Discretionary Denial

In a recent decision, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied a Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial in LifeVac, LLC v. DCSTAR, Inc., IPR2025-00454. Even though Petitioner had previously challenged the same...more

Inventor Testimony of Reduction Date Leads to Denial

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) brought by Par-Kan Company, LLC against Unverferth Manufacturing Company regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ‘940 patent”). ...more

Delegated Rehearing Panel Sends Lifeline to Mercedes-Benz

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

Estoppel Trumps Substance: ITC Bars Respondent’s Invalidity Grounds Raised in IPR

Recently, an ITC Administrative Law Judge applied IPR statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in denying a Respondent’s motion for summary determination of invalidity in Certain Audio Players and Components Thereof,...more

Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior At Grounds

In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid...more

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more

PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...more

Provisionals’ Disclosures Must Fully Support an Issued Claim for Pre-AIA Priority

The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more

Motivation to Modify Prior Art Need Not Be the Same as Challenged Patent

Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the...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

Similar Claims in Prior IPR Petition Leads to Denial

The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to deep packet inspection in software defined networks in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit Corporation, IPR2024-00895. Applying the General...more

When Is a Published Patent Application Prior Art in an IPR?

On appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”), the Federal Circuit held that, under pre-America Invents Act (“pre-AIA”) law, a published patent application is prior art as of its filing date as opposed to its later date of...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 Reiterates Strict Evidentiary Standard for Printed Publications

The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for a patent directed to geothermal technology. Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Techs. Inc., IPR2014-00665, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2024). The claimed invention related to...more

Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight

“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution...more

District Court Not Persuaded System Prior Art Evades IPR Estoppel

On October 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) to identify the date on which it learned of each patent, patent application, and printed...more

Citing Issued Patent Instead of Pre-Grant Publication Almost Costs Petitioner

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) released a final written decision finding no challenged claims were unpatentable in Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLC, IPR2023-00953, Paper 74 (August 19, 2024). ...more

96 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"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