IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
In an appeal from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to include certain evidence first presented in the petitioner’s Reply but...more
In a nonprecedential opinion on remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director-granted request for review, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) reconstrued...more
As we demonstrated in our own successful appeal, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) may fail when an expert declaration lacks detailed explanation. An expert’s...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
Experienced PTAB practitioners know that, in an IPR, assuming each claim element is in the asserted prior art, the rubber meets the road on the reason-to-combine arguments. In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster, LLC, the Federal...more
Smith & Nephew petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of Arthrex’s patent. After the petition was filed, but before the Board issued an institution decision, Arthrex statutorily disclaimed all the challenged claims under 37...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
The USPTO has published a final rule, changing the claim construction standard applied during post-grant proceedings (inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered business methods reviews) before the Office’s Patent...more
Measure twice cut once – the same can be said of the Petition in American Invents Act (“AIA”) proceedings. Time and again the Board and Federal Circuit[i] have used the Administrative Procedure Act[ii] (“APA”) – guaranteeing...more
A few weeks ago, we posted an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 880 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (see Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Avoid Adverse Judgment...more
At this point, several cases have examined the appealability of the Board’s institution decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2015) (holding...more
In a split decision that drew separate opinions from each of the panel members, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decision to enter an adverse judgment against a patentee, even though the patentee had properly...more
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., slip op. 2017-1239, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to enter an adverse judgment following Patent Owner’s disclaimer of all claims challenged in an inter...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Dyk, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The PTAB may enter an adverse judgment against a patent owner where, before issuing an institution...more
The PTAB recently designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in IPR proceedings in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290,...more
Inter Partes Reexamination Estoppel Attaches On Claim-by-Claim Basis for New Requests and Pending Proceedings - In In re Affinity Labs Of Texas, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2016-1092, 2016-1172, the Federal Circuit held that the...more
The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more