The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to decide a case which may create new estoppel concerns for AIA petitioners under 35 USC § 315(e)(2). The appeal resulted from a Hatch-Waxman litigation in BTG v. Amneal,...more
Today in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a fractured Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sitting en banc decided to flip the burden of persuasion onto petitioners in IPR proceedings to show that an amendment is not...more
10/6/2017
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Production ,
Claim Amendments ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
USPTO
In what is becoming a familiar basis for reversal of PTAB decisions, the Federal Circuit yet again reversed the PTAB for its failure to adequately explain the basis for combining multiple prior art references in support of...more
On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more
1/18/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Burden of Production ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standing
In a case that appears to be a case of first impression, the PTAB found in its decision denying institution in IPR2016-00781 that a final written decision in an earlier IPR created estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1),...more