In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...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 2021, an organization of patent owners and various patent-holding companies sued the USPTO in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent owners sought to force the USPTO Director to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more
With the Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy holding IPRs constitutional under Article III, and the Federal Circuit in Celgene v. Peter holding the retroactive use of IPRs against pre-AIA patents not to be an...more
In a precedential decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) dismissed a petition for inter partes review (IPR), finding that the one-year time limit for filing an IPR petition under 35 USC § 315(b) is triggered even...more
Did AVX Suffer A Constitutionally Recognizable Injury? AVX did not need Article III standing to file its IPR petition with the PTO because the PTAB is not an Article III tribunal. Further, the AIA provides that “a party...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - AVX Corporation v. Presidio Components, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019) - Following an inter partes review upholding the patentability of certain challenged claims, the...more
The Federal Circuit just issued a decision that confirms its stance on Article III standing for appeals from inter partes reviews (IPRs), making it tougher for unsuccessful IPR petitioners to obtain judicial review of U.S....more
Estimates are that roughly 80% of IPRs involve a challenge to a patent being asserted against the petitioner in a district court litigation. Typically, in those IPRs, if the litigation-defendant-petitioner loses at the PTAB,...more
This year the Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Federal District Courts penned a number of opinions impacting patent law. Here are some key takeaways from the past year....more
Under the America Invents Act, manufacturers possess a powerful tool for combatting overly broad competitor patents: inter partes review (IPR). IPR allows any party to challenge one or more patent claims by filing a petition...more
In light of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 5), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd., Appeal No. 2017-1828 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2018) The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review, holding that, although JTEKT...more
In 2012, Congress created a new procedure that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a litigation-like procedure to review and potentially cancel patents. This procedure - inter partes review (“IPR”) - has...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 24 issued its decision in the closely watched patent case Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). The case addressed a constitutional challenge to...more
Anyone reading this post is likely well aware that on April 24 the Supreme Court put an end to the PTAB’s practice of instituting inter partes review (IPR) on less than all claims challenged in an IPR petition in SAS...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2016-2099, -2100, -2101, -2332, -2333, -2334 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit...more
The PTAB’s new guidance in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling changes the dynamics for patent owners and petitioners. Key Points: ..Partial institutions are no longer permitted. The PTAB will review all petitioned...more
As the most-active firm practicing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), we are proud to have shared in our clients’ successes over the years. Fish was one of the first firms to file a post-grant petition in 2012, and...more
On April 24th, the Supreme Court decided two important cases related to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for reconsidering the prior grant of a patent – Oil States Energy...more
In a pair of decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPR) process created by the America Invents Act but required the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to make a...more
Tuesday, April 24, 2018, proved to be a banner day for inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. The United States Supreme Court issued two separate opinions addressing the regime, the first upholding the constitutionality of...more
• The Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy ruled 7-2 that cancellation of patent claims in an inter partes review does not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. • In SAS...more
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to the America Invents Act’s inter partes review process. The court held that inter partes review (IPR)...more
This timely and fast-moving webinar provides insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the recently issued Supreme Court decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute...more