News & Analysis as of

Patent Ownership Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Intellectual Property Litigation

Knobbe Martens

IPR Standing Arguments Not Presented to the Board Are Forfeited

Knobbe Martens on

APPLE INC. v. GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial And Appeal Board. A patent owner forfeits its argument that an IPR petitioner lacks standing under 35 U.S.C....more

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

Reexamination of Expired Patents

Takeaways - - Expired patents may be eligible for reexamination. - Owner’s options during reexamination of an expired patent are severely limited. Similar to reexamination practice, which has long allowed reexamination...more

Knobbe Martens

Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply When the Prior Proceeding Applies a Lower Burden of Proof

Knobbe Martens on

Because there are different burdens of proof in IPRs and district court, collateral estoppel does not preclude a patent owner from asserting claims that are immaterially different from claims canceled in an IPR....more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Holds That PTAB Has Jurisdiction To Review Expired Patents

A&O Shearman on

On, January 27, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on certain claims of Gesture Technology...more

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

2024 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the intellectual property landscape. In 2024, several developments affecting PTAB practice emerged, from new rulemaking at the USPTO to key...more

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

IP Hot Topic: USPTO Publishes Long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with Updates to PTAB Practice and Procedure

On April 19, 2024, the USPTO published a long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that followed its April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). The proposed rules package, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Jones Day

Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination

Jones Day on

It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Parallel IPR Petition

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently denied Intel’s (Petitioner) parallel IPR petition (IPR2023-01140) against AX Wireless (Patent Owner) challenging certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,917,272. The denial came after Intel filed a separate...more

Jones Day

Failure to Prove “Prior” Art Results in Denial

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently denied IPR institution in Sophos v. Open Text because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted reference was, in fact, prior art.  IPR2023-00732, Paper 23 (November 2, 2023)....more

Jones Day

Failure to Make Full Sotera-Stipulation Contributes to Denial

Jones Day on

In an increasingly rare exercise of discretion, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under Fintiv in Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2023-00587. The PTAB reasoned that...more

Jones Day

Expectation of Success Analysis Need Not Be Separate

Jones Day on

In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more

Jones Day

Deadline IPR Service Fails to Bar Institution

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently granted institution of inter partes review despite the Patent Owner not receiving the petition for the proceeding until three business days after the statutory deadline. See Kahoot! ASA and Kahoot Edu, Inc.,...more

A&O Shearman

UPC denies third party access to revocation action and evidence

A&O Shearman on

In Astellas v. Osaka University (UPC_CFI_75/2023), by decision of 21 September 2023, the UPC Munich Central Division denied a third party access to the case file, specifically to Astellas’ revocation action, which was...more

Jones Day

Common Inventorship And Technology Insufficient For 325(d) Denial

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023)

This case addresses the “skilled and diligent searcher” standard used for establishing Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) estoppel (or lack thereof). In particular, this case establishes: (1) which party bears the burden of proof...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - December 2022: Broad Motion To Amend Scope Available in AIA Proceedings So Long as...

The Federal Circuit recently held that clarifying and §112-based amendments are allowed in addition to narrowing amendments used to overcome prior art teachings in Motions to Amend during PTAB proceedings. In American...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Monetizing University Patent Portfolios During the Economic Downturn

Colleges and universities may be leaving money on the table with under-utilized patent portfolios. The time is right, as the law has shifted in favor of patent owners, both in inter partes review litigation before the Patent...more

17 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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