News & Analysis as of

Patents Evidence Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Application Of Collateral Estoppel

Jones Day on

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC sued Groupon, Inc., alleging infringement of 13 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (“’660 patent’), which relates to incentive programs over computer networks. Those claims were invalidated via...more

Knobbe Martens

Inaction Can Lead To Argument Forfeiture on Appeal

Knobbe Martens on

ALIVECOR, INC. v. APPLE INC. Before Hughes, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board - A party in a PTAB proceeding forfeits the ability to challenge an opposing party’s discovery obligation violation...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Touches on Appellate Standing and Prior Art Determinations in the Context of Post-Grant Review Proceedings

In CQV Co. Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH, the Federal Circuit addressed (1) the interaction of indemnification agreements with Article III standing for appeals of post-grant review decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;...more

Jones Day

Petitioner’s Proof of Printed Publication Falls Short

Jones Day on

On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTAB’s decision hinged on whether...more

Kilpatrick

5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)

Kilpatrick on

Kilpatrick partners John Alemanni and Justin Krieger recently presented a CLE addressing “Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal).” * The opinions expressed are those of the attorneys and do...more

Jones Day

Thickness Arguments Cross the Line for Federal Circuit

Jones Day on

When issued patent drawings are not explicitly made to scale, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that arguments relying solely or predominately on the features of those drawings, such as line thickness, are “unavailing.” ...more

Kilpatrick

5 Key Takeaways | Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal)

Kilpatrick on

Kilpatrick partners John Alemanni and Justin Krieger recently presented a CLE addressing “Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal).”...more

Jones Day

“First Available” Date Alone Is Insufficient Evidence of Disclosure

Jones Day on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding that an online store’s assertion regarding when a product was “first available” is by itself insufficient evidence of...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Refuses to Ignore Reference Where Patent Owner Fails to Overcome Prima Facie Evidence of ‘Different Inventive Entity’

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a reference could be used as prior art because patent owner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the prior art’s disclosure was invented by all four named inventors, and...more

Jones Day

Petitioner Mistakenly Ignores Not-So-Optional Claim Limitation

Jones Day on

The PTAB recently excluded a portion of Duration Media LLC’s (Petitioner) reply declaration for containing improper new evidence in an inter partes review petition filed against Rich Media Club LLC (Patent Owner) challenging...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Denies Motion to Compel Discovery of Evidence from Parallel ITC Investigation Due to Lack of Inconsistency

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent...more

Jones Day

Secondary Considerations Arguments Precluded By Prior Nexus Testimony

Jones Day on

On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Is Evidence of All Claimed Elements in Prior Art Enough? Not Without Motivation to Combine

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness decision, finding that disclosure in the prior art of all recited claim elements across multiple references, without more,...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Importance of Reasonable Particularity in a Doctrine of Equivalents Argument

In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 22-1906 (Fed. Cir. 2023), VLSI sued Intel for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,523,373 (the “’373 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (the “’759 patent”). After a jury...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Ordinary Meaning: “Identifying” Doesn’t Mean Detecting; It Means Identifying

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decisions finding one set of challenged claims patentable and another set of challenged claims in the same patent unpatentable. The...more

Jones Day

Undated Screenshot Insufficient to Prove Public Accessibility of GitHub Repository

Jones Day on

In AO Kaspersky Lab v. Open Text Inc., the PTAB denied inter partes review after determining that a screenshot of a GitHub repository was insufficient to establish that a whitepaper posted to that repository qualified as a...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

The Intertwining Nature of Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success

In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., No. 21-1985 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2023), the case addresses the interplay between findings related to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success in determining...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Ruling of Obviousness for the Colorization of Fabrics

In Jodi A. Schwendimann, fka Jodi A. Dalvey, v. Neenah, Inc., Avery Products Corporation, No. 2022-1333, 2022-1334, 2022-1427, 2022-1432 (Fed. Cir. October 6, 2023) (“Opinion”), the case addresses whether there was...more

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

[Webinar] Developments in IPR Estoppel - December 5th, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EST

Director Jason A. Fitzsimmons and Counsel Richard A. Crudo will present the “Developments in IPR Estoppel” webinar on Tuesday, December 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM ET. The possibility of being estopped from asserting prior art in...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - August 2023 #3

Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Appeal No. 2022-1765 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2023) In its only precedential patent case of the week, the Federal Circuit held the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in...more

Knobbe Martens

Low-Bar for Corroboration

Knobbe Martens on

MEDTRONIC, INC. v. TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L. Before Moore, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Summary: Federal Circuit confirms low bar for evidence corroborating prior inventorship...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - May 2023: Kyocera and the Brewing Debate Over Expert Qualifications at the PTAB

Technical experts play a key role in patent litigation, including in PTAB litigation. Indeed, experts are often the only witnesses to provide testimony in PTAB proceedings, and final written decisions often hinge on which...more

Jones Day

Tactical Decision Leads to Supplemental Information Request Denial

Jones Day on

Parties before the PTAB should be careful to submit supplemental materials as soon as practicable. In Extractiontek Sales v. Gene Pools Tech., the PTAB denied a Patent Owner’s motion to submit a deposition transcript from a...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Little Weight Given to Expert Declaration That Repeats IPR Petition

The US Patent & Trademark Office Director affirmed and designated as precedential a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition where the expert declaration...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions: Google LLC v. IPA Technologies Inc., 34 F.4th 1081...

Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...more

182 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 8

"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