IPR Institution and Early Intervention - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Whether an argument raised in a Petitioner Reply falls within the scope of permissible arguments following a Patent Owner Response (POR) in IPR proceedings is a frequent source of dispute. As Axinn reported back in August,...more
The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions in August, reminding parties in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings to refrain from sandbagging and raise all arguments at the first opportunity. In Axonics v....more
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
Introducing evidence in a motion to file a reply to a patent owner’s preliminary response without the PTAB’s authorization may result in denial and expungement. A recent motion met such a fate in Ice Castles, LLC v....more
The authors have recently proposed alternative analyses for the discretionary denial of IPR and PGR petitions involved in parallel district court litigation, as well as for the discretionary denial of serial petitions filed...more
Arguing against material constructions proffered by an IPR petition is a basic building block of the patent owner’s preliminary response. Obviously, patent owners must investigate and advocate for claim constructions for...more
We’ve previously written that the best defense to an IPR challenge is avoiding IPR institution altogether. In addition to the other tips discussed in this series of posts, another strategy for avoiding institution is focusing...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
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
On September 6, 2019, a PTAB panel including USPTO Director Andrei Iancu instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,279,259 (“the ‘259 Patent”). The ‘259 Patent is directed to a tile lippage removal system...more
The PTAB recently denied petitioner’s request for rehearing of a decision denying institution of inter partes review, rejecting the argument that the Board’s denial was based on an erroneous analysis of the “non-exhaustive”...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently considered whether to stay an ex parte reexamination proceeding where the patent was also the subject of a parallel inter partes review (IPR). On September 11...more
On July 14, 2019, the USPTO published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide with additional guidance about trial practice before the Board. This latest update, while lengthy, does not introduce many significant...more
Relying on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has articulated its reluctance to review “follow-on” petitions challenging the validity of patents that have been previously subjected to inter partes review....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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1521 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 27, 2018) - In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Court reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
Practitioners are familiar with the typical submission process in America Invents Act (“AIA”) – Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) proceedings. First, the Petition is filed, and then the Patent Owner may submit a Patent...more
In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC, the PTAB provided new guidance to practitioners regarding the eligibility of conference papers as printed publications for use as prior art references...more
On September 6, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an “informative” decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd, v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha setting forth the Board’s framework for analyzing...more
As a result of recent changes in the PTAB rules of practice, counsel for patent owners should consider whether there are opportunities to identify factual deficiencies in petitions. Counsel for petitioners in inter partes...more
When a patent is challenged in an inter partes review and a final written decision has been issued, a statutory estoppel will prevent certain subsequent proceedings. The scope of the estoppel, which applies to both Patent and...more
Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may institute inter partes review (IPR) with respect to some but not all of the claims challenged in a petition, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by Kyle Bass against two of the five Juxtapid patents listed in the Orange Book. Two of the cited references may...more
In an order perhaps indicating that the tide is turning for patent owners seeking to amend claims in inter partes review (IPR), an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided clarification as...more
On August 24, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined institution of two petitions filed by Coalition For Affordable Drugs for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) of Acorda’s patents (U.S. Patent Nos: 8,007,826,...more