Many have argued that the PTAB is biased against patent owners, but one has to wonder whether they are taking into account the procedural benefits afforded to patent owners. As Intel experienced in its recent IPR, a...more
As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more
9/1/2020
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Lack of Evidence ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Reaffirmation ,
Substantial Evidence Standard
Inter partes reviews (IPR) are limited by statute to grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty requirement) and 103 (nonobviousness requirement) and on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications....more
8/31/2018
/ Appeals ,
CAFC ,
Claim Limitations ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Method Claims ,
Nonobvious ,
Novelty ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103