The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition because a prior art patent figure did not provide exact dimensions, and therefore could not meet the relevant claim limitation. On...more
In an ANDA case in the District of Delaware, the court has rejected an obviousness challenge to a patented method of increasing survival in patients having prostate cancer. The court found that early clinical trial results...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently rejected an inter partes review petition that relied on a conclusory and unsupported expert declaration. The expert’s written testimony, which repeated portions of the petition...more
In an IPR institution decision issued shortly after the USPTO issued interim guidance on discretionary denials, the PTAB held that the petition presented “compelling evidence of unpatentability,” foreclosing a Fintiv...more
A recent board decision denying inter partes review serves as a reminder that an expert opining on obviousness must at least meet the definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan. The patent at issue related to a...more
Key Points -
On June 21, 2022, USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued a memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation.”
Under...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding because the petitioner failed to show the challenged patent was eligible for PGR. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner’s evidence,...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted in part a Patent Owner’s motion to strike Petitioner’s Reply for improperly raising new arguments and citing new evidence. The Board, however, declined to throw out the entirety...more
10/14/2019
/ Expert Testimony ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Prosecution History ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petitioner Reply Briefs ,
Prior Art ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
State of the Art Defense
In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more
11/19/2018
/ Cross Examination ,
Declaration ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Exclude ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a petitioner’s request for rehearing of its decision declining institution of inter partes review of a patent owned by Bose Corporation (“Patent Owner.”) The PTAB upheld its...more