The PTAB recently denied a motion to correct clerical mistakes under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) because the corrections presented substantive new evidence that would have had a substantial impact on the proceedings and prejudiced...more
Specification’s Narrow Description of the Invention Results in Disavowal of Claim Scope - In Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. v. ITC., Appeal No. 18-2191, the consistent description in the specification of a particular...more
In a recent order issued in the Northern District of Texas, Judge Godbey denied a Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion despite the Federal Circuit’s holding that the asserted patent was invalid as indefinite. Hyosung TNS, Inc. v....more
While PTAB proceedings are ordinarily decided “on the papers,” in certain rare cases the Board will permit live witness testimony at the oral hearing. The Board’s precedential decision in K-40 v. Escort explains that...more
Recently, in a patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, Webasto Thermo & Comfort N. Am., Inc. v. BesTop, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-13456, Order No. 209 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2019) (Borman, J.), the court...more
In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the Board denied a patent owner’s request to provide live testimony from the inventor of the challenged patent at the oral hearing. In DePuy Synthes Products,...more
Generally, the PTAB does not allow live testimony at oral argument, but recently it designated one of its 2014 decisions as precedential to give guidance as to when the Board will allow live testimony at oral argument. K-40...more