As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC. Before Newman, Lourie, and Stoll - Summary: Termination decision made by the Board in part based on the time-bar was “intimately related” to the institution...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
On March 9, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the no-appeal provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not preclude appellate review of the PTAB’s estoppel determination under section 315(e)(1) when...more
In Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), the Supreme Court held that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to apply the time bar of 35 U.S.C....more
The question of whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has any right to examine a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review or post...more
Current PTAB-relevant case law dictates: 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in...more
Last week was September Court week, marking the unofficial end of summer for Federal Circuit practitioners. The Court issued a total of 25 decisions, including 8 Rule 36 summary affirmances in cases argued last week, as well...more
At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more
In the first half of 2020, several notable decisions further shaped the course of patent law, with rulings from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit impacting PTAB proceedings, as described below...more
In the wake of its six-week-old decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States has now granted certiorari in an appeal of another case arising from a Federal Circuit appeal...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently construed the § 314(d) appeal bar in inter partes reviews (IPRs) as precluding appeals from time-bar determinations per § 315(b). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that the discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board” or “PTAB”) to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”), despite challenges to its timeliness,...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely filed could not be appealed. In a...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
Addressing the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) application of the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Supreme...more
Despite the current environment of social distancing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has continued full operations while eliminating face-to-face interactions. For example, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Any person may challenge the validity of a U.S. patent on the basis that previously issued patents or publications render the patent’s claims invalid as being anticipated by the prior art or obvious in view of the prior art,...more
“I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong,” Samuel Goldwyn once said, and the same is true for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when it comes to determining the timeliness of inter...more
On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, No. 18-916 (S. Ct. Apr. 20, 2020), finding that the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is...more
This week, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the AIA’s “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs, L.P., No. 18-916, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr....more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies LP, the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions regarding the time limit for filing inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) are not subject to...more
The Decision. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review (IPR) are not appealable, even if such institution decisions may...more