Inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) are proceedings in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that allow a petitioner to challenge a patent’s validity and a patent owner to defend that...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
In view of the Supreme Court’s Thryv decision, the Federal Circuit recently reissued its original March 2020 decision in Facebook v. Windy City (Windy City I) after granting Facebook’s petition for rehearing and denying...more
If the PTAB judges who denied institution of an IPR were unconstitutionally appointed under Arthrex at the time they issued that decision, does the petitioner get a second chance with a new panel of different PTAB judges? As...more
In a recent opinion in ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that 35 USC 314(d), which bars appellate review of US Patent and Trademark Office decisions to...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in ESIP Series 2 v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, No. 19-1659, held that the “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”) bars judicial review of PTAB determinations regarding...more
With this decision, the US Supreme Court again prioritizes giving the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) a second chance to review and potentially weed out “bad patents,” over permitting parties the opportunity to challenge...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review (IPR) even on a petition filed beyond the 35...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year after...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP[i], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)[ii], which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declining to apply the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)....more
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Thryv, Inc. fka Dex Media Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP on the question of whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - On December 9, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Case No. 18-916. The case involves the proper application of Section 315(b) of the...more
On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 2015-1944, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018). The issue before the en banc Court was the...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reconsiders its previous decision on the availability of judicial review of IPRs. The statutes, namely 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(d) and 315(b), governing institution of inter partes...more
Judicial review of post-grant patent proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is limited, but a federal court of appeals has somewhat loosened the restriction. On January 8, 2018, in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom...more
The en banc Federal Circuit is currently considering whether the PTAB’s findings regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year bar on IPR petitions can be reviewed on appeal. In Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp, the en banc Court is set...more
In inter partes review proceedings, is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board required to take into account a final district court determination of non-obviousness of the same claims based on the...more
#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more
The hottest recent decisions from the Federal Circuit have centered on post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). One such issue involves when the PTAB is immune from appellate review of decisions it...more
"It appears to me that en banc consideration is warranted." -- Judge Taranto (concurring in Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp.). "I write separately, however, to note that I believe the Supreme Court's...more
In an opinion addressing whether a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to reconsider a decision on institution is “final and nonappealable,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed...more
On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that appellate review is not permissible for Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) rulings on time-bar of an inter partes review (IPR) petition under § 315(b) or on...more
The America Invents Act provided several procedures for challenging the validity of patent claims, including inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”) and covered business method patent challenges (“CBM”). An...more