At the International Trade Commission (ITC), every decision made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is subject to review by a panel of up to six Commissioners. In general, the Commission speaks as a unified voice through...more
Ironburg sued Valve for infringement of Ironburg’s video-game-console controller patent. Valve responded by filing an IPR challenging the claims on various grounds. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board instituted partial review...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
Addressing the standard for mootness in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings following a district court noninfringement judgment, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a petitioner’s IPR appeal was moot...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
Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed an Order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, finding that Appellant Walter A. Tormasi lacked the capacity to sue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure...more
As the country collectively mourns the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I am reminded of the inspiring book “I Dissent: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Makes Her Mark” (which I have read to my children many times). While the...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
The Federal Circuit's inchoate attempts to fashion a consistent, rational application of the Supreme Court's recent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence, while understandably Herculean in view of the difficulties inherent...more
As we mentioned in one of our previous posts, the Federal Circuit recently denied a long-pending petition for rehearing en banc in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings, a Section 101 case. More than 8 months...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
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
Introduction - Packet Intelligence sued NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789. The District Court ruled that all three patents were valid...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
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that the discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board” or “PTAB”) to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”), despite challenges to its timeliness,...more
The PTAB has explained that it has discretion to deny an IPR petition even if the petitioner has shown that it meets the statutory threshold for institution, which requires “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision whether an inter partes review (IPR) petition was timely filed could not be appealed. In a...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
Addressing the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) application of the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Supreme...more
Despite the current environment of social distancing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has continued full operations while eliminating face-to-face interactions. For example, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Any person may challenge the validity of a U.S. patent on the basis that previously issued patents or publications render the patent’s claims invalid as being anticipated by the prior art or obvious in view of the prior art,...more
“I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong,” Samuel Goldwyn once said, and the same is true for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when it comes to determining the timeliness of inter...more