Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 321: Listen and Learn -- Intervention, Impleader, and Class Action Lawsuits (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 153: Listen and Learn -- More Types of Joinder (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 145: Listen and Learn -- Permissive Joinder and Required Joinder
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 72: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Civil Procedure
Collaborating Before The PTAB
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
In 2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied inter partes review (“IPR”) institution where the petition was time barred under 35 U.S.C. § ...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Cooling Patent Restored by Federal Circuit Over PTAB’s Claim Construction - ...more
Late last month, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel instituted two petitions that were filed separately by Celltrion and Biocon for inter partes review (“IPR”) of Regeneron’s U.S. Patent 11,253,572 (“the ’572...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness determination, explaining that inter partes review (IPR) statutory provisions that prohibit an otherwise time-barred party...more
On December 8, 2023, the PTAB instituted three of Samsung Bioepis’s pending IPRs against Alexion’s Soliris® (eculizumab), IPR2023-00933, IPR2023-00998, and IPR2023-00999. The challenged patents include composition of matter,...more
In February 2023, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) filed petitions requesting four inter partes reviews (“the T-Mobile IPRs”)—two of which challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234 and two of which challenged U.S. Patent No....more
In addition to his efforts regarding patent subject matter eligibility law (see "Senate Bill Proposed to Provide Subject Matter Eligibility Solution", co-sponsored with Senator Tillis), Senator Coons, joined by Senators...more
Typically, a Motion for Joinder to an earlier post-grant review (“PGR”) must be filed within one month of the institution of the earlier PGR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b).While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) does have...more
In the PTAB’s recent decision in Code 200 v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01503, Paper No. 13 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2022), the PTAB expounded upon the circumstances in which joinder of a “me-too” case under § 315(b) was not...more
Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 19-1688 (Fed. Cir. March 9, 2021) - The Federal Circuit has further clarified the scope of what types of PTAB decisions are appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). In Uniloc 2017 v....more
Earlier this month, in the precedential decision Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the issue of estoppel (or...more
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board has elevated three panel decisions to precedential this month. RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (Oct. 2, 2020)...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
On December 4th, the PTAB designated the following three cases precedential: RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 (Oct. 2, 2020) (precedential) - This decision on remand from the...more
In a relatively quiet third quarter of 2020, the Federal Circuit decided issues on joinder, estoppel, claim preclusion, and importantly, upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board process finding that cancellation of patent...more
After being sued by Uniloc in April 2018 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 (“Reconfiguration Manager for Controlling Upgrades of Electronic Devices”), Apple challenged claims 1-21 of that patent at the PTAB in...more
In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s holding that joinder petitioner Hewlett Packard (“HP”) (1) could have tried to raise new grounds in its...more
In Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard, No. 18-2338, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated multiple aspects of the district court’s final judgment holding that Hewlett-Packard (HP) did not infringe U.S. Patent No....more
The Federal Circuit reconfirmed its interpretation of the IPR joinder rules of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) after the panel’s rehearing in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400, 2020 WL 5267975 (Fed. Cir. Sept....more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On September 4, 2020, the Federal Circuit modified and reissued its March 18, 2020 Facebook v. Windy City opinion to address the Supreme Court’s intervening April 20, 2020 Thryv v. Click-to-Call opinion...more
FACEBOOK, INC., V. WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS LLC Before Prost, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to review challenges to the Board's joinder...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
Since arriving at the USPTO, Director Iancu has tried to bring clear messages and consistency to the Office. For purposes of this article, we concentrate on the new POP procedures for Board case law and rules, and how the...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