News & Analysis as of

Motion to Amend Prior Art Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Cardiovalve Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2025)

One of the assumptions, or promises, or hopes, attendant on the inauguration of post-grant review proceedings (particularly inter partes reviews) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was that, as in European Opposition...more

Goodwin

Issue 44: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This periodic digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Optimizing Obviousness: Routine Optimization Can Fill in Prior Art Gaps

McDermott Will & Emery on

In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the result-effective variable doctrine can apply even when there is no overlap between a claimed...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Editors' Introduction

Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed patent litigation. In its first...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more

American Conference Institute (ACI)

[Virtual Conference] PTAB Practice Briefing - December 2nd, 10:00 am - 6:00 pm EST

Year-End Analysis and Future Forecasts on the Most Significant Developments Impacting Post-Grant Proceedings. Attend ACI’s inaugural PTAB Practice Briefing virtually on December 2nd for in-depth discussions and year-end...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2020 Decisions: Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45 (Fed. Cir....

The patent claim survival rate before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board continues to strongly favor petitioners. Accordingly, motions to amend the challenged claims have been growing among patent owners in inter partes...more

Jones Day

Nexus Required for Objective Indicia

Jones Day on

In a recent precedential decision, the PTAB emphasized that objective indicia of nonobviousness must have a nexus to the claimed invention. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., No. IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24,...more

Goodwin

Issue Twenty-Nine: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

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

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

PTAB Explains When Sua Sponte Arguments Will Be Allowed

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

On July 6, the USPTO’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) issued a precedential decision in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, Case IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 (P.T.A.B. July 6, 2020) (precedential), explaining the...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2019: The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure...

In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more

Jones Day

PTAB Permits Extra Briefing to Evaluate Request for Rehearing

Jones Day on

In a recent decision, the PTAB admitted that it erred in its prior determination of unpatentability, and authorized supplemental briefing on the patentability of substitute claims. See Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

PTAB allows Amending Claims on Grounds not raised by Petitioner, but were Addressed by the District Court in its Finding of...

To amend challenged claims during an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the patent owner must show that the proposed amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability at issue in the IPR trial. But in a recent final written decision...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Withdrawal of Petitioner from IPR Proceeding All But Ensures Success in Contingent Motion to Amend

On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted patent owner’s motion to amend on the basis that the totality of the record did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the...more

Goodwin

Issue Eighteen: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

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

Jones Day

PTAB Finds Some Pipeline Patent Claims Patentable, Others Amendable

Jones Day on

In a rare successful motion to amend, the PTAB found certain claims of a pipeline monitoring systems patentable, and allowed substitution of amended claims for others deemed unpatentable. See Syrinix Inc. v. Blacoh Fluid...more

Jones Day

PTAB Makes Precedential Its Heightened Scrutiny Of Amended Claims In IPRs

Jones Day on

We recently posted about the panel opinion in Amazon.com v. Uniloc, a final written decision demonstrating how the PTAB has given heightened scrutiny to proposed substitute amended claims in an IPR. In addition to assessing...more

Jones Day

Amended Claims In IPRs Must Clear Higher Hurdle Than Original Claims

Jones Day on

An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend After Aqua Products

Knobbe Martens on

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - January 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Where Parties Raise an Actual Dispute Regarding Claim Scope, the Court Must Resolve It In Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2016-1104, 2016-1105, the Federal Circuit held that where parties raise an actual...more

Knobbe Martens

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In inter partes review, the patent challenger bears the burden of proving that proposed amended...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB’s Consideration of Prior Art Needs a Tune Up

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded a case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where the PTAB had failed to consider a specific prior art combination and unpatentability argument advanced by the...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to...

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims...more

49 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide