4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and examines offensive and defensive arguments related to § 103 obviousness. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC is the owner of U.S....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more
The inter partes review provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act have been criticized for the propensity of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to find invalid all or at least some of the challenged claims,...more
APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial And Appeal Board. A patent owner forfeits its argument that an IPR petitioner lacks standing under 35 U.S.C....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision finding challenged claims invalid based on a published patent application that, in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, was...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more
On Nov. 10, 2021, the Northern District of California granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Apple and co-plaintiffs challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
Last week the Federal Circuit judges geared up for their October argument session and perhaps enjoyed the beautiful fall weather in Washington. But the Court still found time to issue a dozen decisions in a wide range of...more
Yesterday we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC confirming the Board’s authority to review contingent substitute claims after the original claims have been held invalid by a federal...more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Judge Dyk and Judge Newman disagree with the Arthrex remedy requiring rehearing. In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen held the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) was an...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more
In Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 17-1594, Justice SOTOMAYOR wrote for the majority to overturn a Federal Circuit decision that the U.S. Postal Service had standing to petition for covered business method review. The...more
In this case, the question ultimately answered by the Federal Circuit was a straightforward question of statutory interpretation: in determining whether a party is time-barred from filing a petition for inter partes review...more
The Supreme Court ruled in Return Mail that a federal agency is not a "person" who may challenge an issued patent in inter partes review, post-grant review, or CBM review under the AIA. In its 6–3 decision in Return Mail,...more
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to institute patent review proceedings...more
On June 10, 2019 the United States Supreme Court held in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 587 U.S. ____ (2019) that agencies of the federal government cannot challenge the validity of a patent via USPTO...more
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 6-3 decision that federal agencies may not file America Invents Act (AIA) petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service et al.,...more
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s finding that the government is a “person” eligible to petition for post-issuance AIA review proceedings. This 6-3 decision, Return Mail, Inc....more
Presidio Components, Inc. (“Presidio”) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 6,144,547 (the “‘547 Patent”), which American Technical Ceramics Corp. and AVX Corporation (together “plaintiffs”) asserted...more
In the February 1, 2019 decision of Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3282, __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 405682, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision (FWD) holding claims of U.S....more
In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset 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