Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
Although first briefly mentioned as a possibility in the August 2018 Trial Practice Guide Update (page 10), outside of one instance (Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics, IPR2019-00567; -00568, August 8, 2019), PTAB discretionary...more
In the wake of its May 13, 2020, precedential decision in Apple v. Fintiv, Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated as precedential two additional decisions that weigh the Fintiv factors. In Fintiv, the Board...more
In the last two years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has issued two precedential decisions (in NHK and Fintiv) that set forth the board’s test for determining whether to deny an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on...more
The Supreme Court has held the PTAB’s “decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct....more
The PTAB has recently garnered significant attention for denying a spate of IPR petitions in which the challenged patent is also subject to parallel district court litigation. In these cases, the PTAB has invoked the...more
The PTAB has been grappling with how to manage IPR petitions for patents that are also being challenged in federal district court, particularly when the district court is set to determine the patent validity prior to the...more
In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and...more
By creating the new precedential Fintiv factors, the PTAB provides guidance on what it will consider when deciding whether to deny institution of an IPR petition challenging patent claims that are also being litigated in a...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated an order, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020), as precedential. The order outlines six non-dispositive factors the PTAB will...more
On May 5, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated one decision as precedential and removed the precedential designation on another. The newly-designated precedential opinion lays out factors that the PTAB...more
As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. Here is an in depth review of the informative decision. On March 24, 2020,the PTAB designated two sections of...more
On September 12, 2018, the PTAB in NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an IPR, despite the petition’s timely filing, due to a parallel district...more