The PTAB recently denied a motion to correct clerical mistakes under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) because the corrections presented substantive new evidence that would have had a substantial impact on the proceedings and prejudiced...more
A district court has ruled that the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) did not apply to invalidity grounds that relied on physical products. The court also declined to apply judicial estoppel, notwithstanding...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
In a recent inter partes review (IPR), a patent owner overcame a facially persuasive obviousness challenge by relying on evidence from an earlier litigation to establish objective indicia of nonobviousness.
In RTI...more
A district court has ruled that the statutory estoppel arising from an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding does not apply to anticipation and obviousness defenses that rely significantly on a physical device. The court also...more
Relying heavily on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of an inter partes review (IPR) petition involving the patent-in-suit, a court in the Eastern District of Virginia recently refused to let the defendant amend its...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently considered whether a dispute over a patent’s priority date justified filing two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the same claims.
The...more
In a remanded inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that Patent Owner Intellectual Ventures II LLC had successfully antedated a prior art reference asserted by Petitioner Motorola...more
A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently rejected an argument that would have expanded inter partes review (IPR) estoppel seemingly beyond the plain reading of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). The plaintiff had...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
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decisions in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, finding that the PTAB applied the wrong standard when it presumed there was a nexus...more
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of patents relating to printer technology, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Patent Owner’s motion to compel testimony over Petitioner’s arguments that the information...more
12/27/2019
/ Attorney Communications ,
Discovery ,
FRCP 26 ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Compel ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Testimony ,
Work-Product Doctrine
A district court has denied a patent owner’s motion to strike wholesale a defendant’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The key issue in the motion to strike was the application of the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. §...more
11/13/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Estoppel ,
Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
FRCP 12(f) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion To Strike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Pleadings ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Question of Fact ,
Section 101
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
The Federal Circuit recently overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) determination that claims covering a cancer treatment method were obvious.
The patent at issue is directed to a method of treating...more
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
On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted patent owner’s motion to amend on the basis that the totality of the record did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the...more
8/20/2019
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Remand ,
Vacated
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently considered whether to stay an ex parte reexamination proceeding where the patent was also the subject of a parallel inter partes review (IPR).
On September 11...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied a petitioner’s request for inter partes review (IPR) finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding nonobvious the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “’209 Patent”), which are directed to a method of treating cancer.
The claims...more
5/13/2019
/ Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Method Claims ,
Motivation to Combine ,
Nonobvious ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Prior Art
The Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review (IPR) decision holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) incorrectly applied the standard for an inventor to prove diligence in reducing the invention to...more
A district court in California has granted-in-part a Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 due to inter partes review (IPR) estoppel. During the pendency of the litigation, Defendants...more
1/14/2019
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The Southern District of New York has granted a motion in limine precluding evidence of Defendant’s failed inter partes review (IPR) petition.
The parties to the lawsuit are in the business of manufacturing and selling...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
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