On December 28, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not decline to consider the patentability of a claim challenged in an inter partes review (IPR)...more
The Federal Circuit is holding its first argument session of 2022 this week (with a return to telephonic arguments in light of the Omicron variant). In this post, we take a look back at how the Court closed out 2021 and...more
Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) - The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by...more
If you are a patent owner facing an inter partes review (“IPR”) or other post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), your best chance of success is to convince the PTAB not to institute a trial. But that...more
EGENERA, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before Prost, Stoll, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary: A patentee that successfully petitioned to correct a patent’s...more
In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the '740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...more
COCHLEAR BONE ANCHORED SOLUTIONS AB V. OTICON MED. AB - Before Taranto, O’Malley, and Newman. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Anticipation and obviousness analysis by the PTAB is not impossible...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
Addressing the applicability of 35 USC § 112, ¶6 to the term “mechanical control assembly,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gave undue weight to the patent’s...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more
The Federal Circuit decision in In re Durance is a rare precedential decision in an ex parte appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision rejecting a pending patent application. The Court took the USPTO to task...more
In August 2016, Google petitioned for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,552,124 (owned by IXI Mobile), asserting that claims 1–10 are unpatentable. In March 2017, the PTAB instituted the IPR as to claims 1–5, but...more
On September 13, 2017, the PTAB, a five-judge panel, granted a petition to institute an inter partes review brought by HTC America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) against Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) regarding...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more
In a decision dated August 17, 2017, the Board denied institution of Kingston Technology Company, Inc.’s petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-15, 23-28, and 36-39 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802 (“the...more