The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently instituted an inter partes review where the patent owner argued that the petitioner failed to establish its expert as a person of skill in the art, which would have rendered the...more
In Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Sols., LLC, the District of Delaware ruled on summary judgment that ASC is estopped from asserting two obviousness grounds against a patent claim because it raised the same grounds...more
In two related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petitioner’s motion to exclude the declaration of an inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more
The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed Cybergenetics Corp.’s infringement suit after determining that the asserted claims—which recite mathematical algorithms for analyzing data taken from a DNA...more
In an August 18 memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding agency guidance on the proper role of “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The memorandum...more
Optis Wireless Technology, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Texas seeking judgment that it complied with its fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations when it offered 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
On August 1, 2016, Canfield Scientific, Inc. filed a civil action in the District of New Jersey against Melanoscan, LLC, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,748 (“the ’748 Patent”). In...more
In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,550,271 (the “’271 patent”) were not unpatentable because “compelling evidence of secondary considerations of...more