Latest Posts › Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

Share:

91%: That is the Rate at Which the PTAB Affirms Examiner Section 101 Rejections

Over the last two years, we have studied the examiner affirmance rates of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for § 101 rejections.  The PTAB is the administrative court of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)...more

Axonics, Inc., v. Medtronic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)

Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based on a multiple prior art references generally requires that the references teach or suggest all claim elements and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated...more

You Are Going to Hear A Lot More FUD about Patent Law, So Here Are Some Facts

They may have known that it was coming.  Over the last several weeks, lobbying organizations and high-tech blogs have been slowly introducing the same old false, misleading, and deceptive arguments against patent law.  These...more

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

Bad law often gives rise to creative legal arguments.  But the application of such creative lawyering is necessarily bounded by ethical rules and notions of fair dealing.  Patent eligibility, in its current incarnation, has...more

ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

Self-similarity is a characteristic found in many physical, natural, and human-made systems.  In short, it describes a class of structures or behaviors that are at least partially-invariant to time or scale.  Thus, these...more

LG Electronics v. Immervision, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

Can a prior art reference with an error be considered to be a disclosure of the erroneous teaching?  A Federal Circuit panel split over this issue, with their disagreement largely based on how apparent the error would be to...more

The Federal Circuit Addresses Commercial Success

In academic settings, objective indicia of non-obviousness are sometimes presented as a common way of rebutting contentions that a claimed invention is obvious.  These indicia, set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. and...more

Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

The legal concept of obviousness is tricky.  A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the...more

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against DSS's U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted the IPRs and issued final written...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Synopsys brought a patent infringement action against Mentor Graphics in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,530,841, 5,680,318, 5,748,488, and 6,836,420. Claim...more

September Was a Good Month for Patent Eligibility in the District Courts

Anecdotally, there seems to be a loosening up regarding the application of § 101 by the District Courts. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l has been referred to as sounding a death knell for...more

In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law: Winter 2016 Vol. 14, Issue 1

Patentable Subject Matter after Alice: Best Practices for Responding to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections - It has been over 20 months since the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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