Jones Day Talks: PTAB's Busy Docket and What's Changed After SAS Institute
Podcast: PTAB Changes After SAS: New Litigation Tactics & Further Changes to Come
Inter partes review—or “IPR”—has become a popular avenue for accused patent infringers to challenge the validity of a patent’s claims outside of federal court. Any interested party may file for IPR, but the basis for...more
First, a bit of background. Inter-Partes Review (IPR) estoppel applies to “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). In 2018, The Shaw decision...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...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
Under U.S. patent law, “No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). And petitioners only need to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one...more
2020 | Attorney Publications When the U.S. Supreme Court decided SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu in the spring of 2018, it held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must institute inter partes review on either all claims raised...more
We surveyed inter partes review proceedings instituted in the year following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, and identified five takeaways regarding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's...more
WHAT DO WE KNOW? 1. On July 22, 2020, a sharply split Federal Circuit panel held that “[t]he PTAB correctly concluded that it is not limited by § 311(b) in its review of proposed substitute claims in an IPR, and that it...more
FITBIT, INC. v. VALENCELL, INC. Before Newman, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Notwithstanding its rejection of the Petitioner’s proposed claim construction, the PTAB may not end an...more
Although the Federal Circuit faced obviousness issues that were simple to resolve in Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., it saw an opportunity to continue to clarify its jurisprudence regarding standing on appeal from an adverse final...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed changes to the rules of practice for instituting review on all challenged claims or none in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and the...more
With this decision, the US Supreme Court again prioritizes giving the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) a second chance to review and potentially weed out “bad patents,” over permitting parties the opportunity to challenge...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP[i], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)[ii], which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declining to apply the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)....more
When Congress created inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, it included an estoppel provision to avoid duplicative validity challenges against the same patent claims.1 As set forth in...more
Defendants sued for patent infringement in district court commonly seek litigation stays based on an American Invents Act (AIA)-contested proceeding that assesses the validity of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial...more
In August 2018, the Patent Office foreshadowed that the Board would be expanding the use of its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a)/324(a) and 325(d) to deny petitions. The Office explained that “[t]here may be other reasons...more
The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can institute inter partes review (IPR) on a ground not advanced by the petitioner, as well as whether the general knowledge of a person...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed limits on what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is authorized to do by statute when dealing with challenged claims in an inter partes review (IPR) that it finds...more
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Priusa Engineering Corp., Appeal Nos. 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020). Samsung filed an IPR petition against claims 1-4, 8 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 owned by Priusa....more
In view of Arthrex, can an unsuccessful petitioner get a do-over of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR? The USPTO says no, and the Federal Circuit has been asked to consider the question in United Fire Protection...more
On November 20, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued updated guidance for trial procedures in inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings at the US Patent and Trademark Office in the new...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of obviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), concluding that the finding was based on a reference that was included only in a non-instituted...more
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Thryv, Inc. fka Dex Media Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP on the question of whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - On December 9, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Case No. 18-916. The case involves the proper application of Section 315(b) of the...more