Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...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
Issuing a third and final decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision invalidating the last remaining claim of a Nike footwear textile patent. Nike, Inc....more
US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution denials for inter partes review (“IPR”) and other post-grant review petitions have steadily risen from 13 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2020. In 2020, the institution...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) has issued final rules in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and the transitional program for covered business method patents (CBM) proceedings...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a final rule regarding the allocation of the burden of persuasion for the patentability of substitute claims on...more
It has been argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) cannot engage in rulemaking through decisions made by its administrative patent judges (APJs), even if those decisions are made precedential, as APJs...more
Last month’s newsletter discussed Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, where patent owner Alacritech appealed a final written decision (FWD) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) for inter partes review (IPR)...more
To institute an inter partes review (IPR), the petition requesting the proceeding must be filed within one year of the petitioner or real party in interest (RPI) receiving a complaint alleging patent infringement. 35 U.S.C. §...more
Earlier this week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proposed rule changes for amending patents in AIA proceedings. The proposed rule changes would apply to inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review...more
Practitioners have long sought more predictability and uniformity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and it now appears the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is taking that issue head on. On...more
Despite changing claim construction to district court standard, where BRI had always been premised on the patent owners ability to amend, it appears the USPTO is responding to a half-decade of negative comments from the...more
IPR Petitioner’s Initial Identification of the Real Parties in Interest Is to Be Accepted Unless and Until Disputed by a Patent Owner - In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583, the Federal...more
On October 26, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Request for Comment on proposed changes to motion to amend practice in AIA trials. The Office states that its goal in proposing these changes...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) In a reissued, slightly altered version of a July 3, 2018 decision,...more
In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) instructing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to reweigh the evidence in a manner that placed the ultimate...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018) In appeals from three inter partes reviews, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB may initially accept an IPR petitioner’s identification of real-parties-in-interest, but...more
The first real post-Aqua guidance issued from the Board on June 1, 2018 for motions to amend. Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00082 and IPR2018-00084 (Paper 13). According to the Western Digital...more
On June 1, 2018 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office designated a Board order in Western Digital Corporation v. SPEX Technologies, Inc. as informative on the issue of Motions to Amend during an IPR. At the same time, the...more
In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable. The decision, issued on...more
In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more
In Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01613, Paper 118 (Feb. 26, 2018), the PTAB granted the patent owner Willis Electric’s motion to amend a claim directed to lighted artificial trees. This decision...more
Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more
On November 21st, the PTAB issued guidance on motions to amend based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In view of the Aqua Products decision, the PTAB...more