The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to institute inter partes review, finding there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioners would prevail on their obviousness challenges. In rendering its decision, the...more
A judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to prior-art products, even if those products are “cumulative” of prior-art patents or printed publications that were...more
In a recent order, the Eastern District of Texas declined to preclude a defendant from raising prior art system references despite patentee’s argument that similar printed publications could have been raised in earlier inter...more
The Eastern District of Texas has rejected a plaintiff’s argument that if a patent owner concedes in an inter partes review (IPR) that a prior art reference discloses all elements of a patent claim, the reference necessarily...more
In a recent decision issued in Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Huber Engineered Woods LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressed the showing that a petitioner for inter partes review must make to demonstrate that an asserted...more
Chief Judge Stark granted a patent owner’s motion for summary judgment of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel, holding that obviousness defenses based on a prior art product could not be asserted because a prior art...more
2/3/2020
/ Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Summary Judgment
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed the final written decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) panel in six related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Board held in those proceedings that (1) a...more
Requests for rehearing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) are not uncommon; however, the Board rarely grants them. One reason for this result is the high standard applied to reverse a prior decision—abuse of...more
4/19/2018
/ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Reversal
In a final written decision issued on August 30, 2016, in an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) examined whether a “Request for Comments” (RFC) document qualified as a printed publication under 35...more