First Republic Executives Fail in Attempt to Recover Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan Assets
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petition was filed more than one year after patent owner had served a complaint for patent...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
The PTAB recently declined to exercise its discretion to deny IPR, instituting review in BMW of North America, LLC v. NorthStar Systems LLC, IPR2023-01017, Paper 12 (Dec. 8, 2023). There, the PTAB held that (1) a Sotera...more
On June 1, 2023, the new European Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened its doors, and enforcement of European patents in (currently) 17 contract member states is now possible with one action. This series of articles – directed...more
On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that certain restrictions on the ability to challenge the validity of patents are enforceable. Without such restrictions, companies that are...more
ROHM SEMICONDUCTOR USA, LLC v. MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: An arbitration agreement, which...more
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revisited its decision in Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355...more
On April 7, in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), upholding validity in two inter partes review...more
It is well-established that a counterclaim for invalidity in a district court litigation does not trigger the 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) bar. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(3). See also our previous posts discussing strategies for...more
Non-Infringement Need Not Be “Actually Litigated” To Shield Accused Products From Infringement Liability In Subsequent Actions - In In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 19-1918, the Federal Circuit ruled that the...more
If the patent demand letter situation escalates and you may be sued for infringement, you have options to consider. 1. Consider filing a lawsuit for declaratory judgment (DJ). In certain cases you may file a lawsuit...more
Declaratory judgment (“DJ”) actions have fallen out of favor in patent cases in recent years. In 2011, DJ complaints made up approximately 11 percent of all patent cases filed that year. Last year, they made up less than 5...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
When bringing a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent, careful pleading may allow plaintiffs to avoid the restrictions against later seeking inter partes review (IPR) of that patent, while also...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Communication Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1672 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week explores two important procedural issues: a court’s discretion to...more
Last year, this blog discussed various strategic considerations for litigants seeking declarations of invalidity in district court actions to avoid being precluded from also seeking inter partes or other post-grant review...more
The PTAB recently designated a decision interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) as precedential. Cisco Systems Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc. (IPR2018-01511, Paper No. 11) addresses the 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) bar in light of the...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
The PTAB designated at least three more decisions as precedential. Of note, two of the cases rely on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Click to Call, which is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court on December 9,...more
On August 23, 2019, the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a precedential opinion relating to the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). ...more
Our previous blog post on NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), noted the PTAB’s exercise of its § 314(a) discretion to deny IPR institution, despite the...more
Addressing an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by respondents to an earlier-filed International Trade Commission (ITC) Section 337 investigation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to treat the petition...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) vacated its institution decision and terminated an inter partes review (IPR) filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) based on Mylan’s prior counterclaim seeking a...more
In Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. MacroPoint LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) considered whether the time-bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) was triggered when a real party-in-interest had previously filed an...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