The US Patent & Trademark Office Director partially vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s real-party-in-interest (RPI) determination because that determination was not necessary to resolve the underlying proceeding....more
Atlanta Gas petitioned for inter partes review of Bennett’s ’029 patent. The Board initially rejected Bennett’s argument that Atlanta Gas was time barred from petitioning for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and...more
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
In the PTAB’s recent decision in Code 200 v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01503, Paper No. 13 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2022), the PTAB expounded upon the circumstances in which joinder of a “me-too” case under § 315(b) was not...more
From the beginning of AIA proceedings, Petitioners that have lost at institution decision phase have tried using Mandamus to circumvent the statutory lack of appeal from institution decisions. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v....more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1688, -1689 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, Uniloc appealed from two consolidated IPR decisions finding multiple claims unpatentable as obvious....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 year 2020 brought significant change to many sectors of life, and patent law was no exception. Throughout the year, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit handed down several notable decisions that have and will...more
In RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held in a precedential opinion that three inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the...more
NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc., (Petitioner) who was otherwise barred from pursuing two IPR proceedings regarding patents owned by HandyLab, Inc. (Patent Owner) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year deadline, filed a Motion to Change...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
After being sued by Uniloc in April 2018 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 (“Reconfiguration Manager for Controlling Upgrades of Electronic Devices”), Apple challenged claims 1-21 of that patent at the PTAB in...more
Although infrequently awarded, district courts are empowered to issue sanctions for behavior at the PTAB that they deem “exceptional” under Octane Fitness. In Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group Limited,...more
Throughout the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) history, patent owners have tried to leverage a petitioner’s alleged failure to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) as a way to achieve denial of an inter partes...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
NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY - Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: A...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On September 4, 2020, the Federal Circuit modified and reissued its March 18, 2020 Facebook v. Windy City opinion to address the Supreme Court’s intervening April 20, 2020 Thryv v. Click-to-Call opinion...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
Recently, we reported about the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the AIA’s “no appeal” provision in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) means that the PTAB’s decision not to institute IPR because a petition is time barred under 35 U.S.C....more
FITBIT, INC. v. VALENCELL, INC. Before Newman, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Notwithstanding its rejection of the Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, the PTAB may not end an...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