Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox invites you to the webinar, "PTAB Analysis, Trends, and Forecast: Fintiv and Discretionary Denials," on Monday, March 21, 2022, from 1:00 to 2:00 PM (EDT). In conjunction with the release...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has increasingly used its discretionary denial authority in recent years. Although the PTAB’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Fintiv grabbed many headlines in 2021, the...more
Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed patent litigation. In its first...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
This blog has previously discussed PTAB’s exercise of discretion under Section 325(d). Sometimes the PTAB has invoked Section 325(d) to deny institution; sometimes it has declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter...more
In re: Vivint, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1992 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2021) - In an appeal from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a party may challenge the validity of an...more
In Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550 (PTAB March 17, 2020) (Paper 8), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, exercising its discretion to deny “follow-on petitions”...more
The Patent Act allows anyone to try to initiate an inter partes review (IPR), which is a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging one or more claims of a patent. Any such challenge may be based...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
Addressing the scope of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution, the Board designated three opinions as precedential or informative. Precedential Opinions: In...more
...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 October 31, 2019, the PTAB denied PUMA North America, Inc. (PUMA)’s...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) recently designated two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative, marking its first precedential and informative designations for 2020. In two of the...more
As we noted, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. Here is an in depth review of a first of the precedential designated decisions. On March 24, 2020, the PTAB...more
By Matt Johnson – Last week, the PTAB designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. These cases discuss the Board’s process for deciding when to use their discretion to deny institution because a...more
35 U.S.C. § 325(d) gives the PTAB discretion to deny a petition for inter partes review when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously before the Office – including during original examination,...more
The USPTO explained the significance of the cases as follows: Becton, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (Paper 8) – (precedential as to section III.C.5, first paragraph...more
The most persuasive IPR petitions offer fresh unpatentability theories never considered before. But petitions that simply repackage old issues often don’t gain traction. So, when you’re citing prior art that was before the...more
The PTAB recently designated two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative on discretion to institute review. Becton, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017)...more
Addressing the scope of its discretion to institute or deny a petition under 35 USC §§ 314(a) and 325(d), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential two recent decisions denying institution of inter...more
Following the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent wave of decisions designated precedential or informative, the USPTO added two more decisions to the list last week: Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting...more
Recently, the PTO issued a Notice providing guidance on how the Board treats reissue and reexamination proceedings while an AIA trial on the same patent is co-pending. The guidance comes in response to public comments and...more
On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a petition to review the PTAB’s refusal to deny IPR institution under § 325(d), in a case where the challenged patent had survived several...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the PTAB has discretion regarding whether to institute a covered business method review if the arguments presented in the petition are the same, or substantially the same, as those previously...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) provided yet another arrow in the patent owner’s quiver for defending against institution of IPRs. In NHK International Corp. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,...more