News & Analysis as of

Statutory Interpretation Intellectual Property Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Haug Partners LLP

Settled Expectations: How the PTAB’s New Discretionary Denial Framework Is Reshaping IPR Strategy

Haug Partners LLP on

In a recent article, Haug Partners previewed that the impact of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) new bifurcated approach to discretionary denial requests would depend on how the new Acting USPTO Director, Coke...more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO: No Bright-Line Rule on When Expectations Become Settled

Fish & Richardson on

On June 18, 2025, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director Stewart issued a discretionary denial decision in Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. v. AXA Power ApS, granting the patent owner’s request for discretionary denial...more

Baker Donelson

Insights from Month One of Acting Director Stewart's Decisions on Discretionary Denial under the New Interim Processes for PTAB...

Baker Donelson on

Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Implicit And Incorrect Claim Construction Of “Between 1 And 10”

A&O Shearman on

On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Is it Prior Art? Check the Provisional Application!

This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzed collateral estoppel and the extent to which the non-provisional document would benefit from the provisional application’s priority date, as it relates to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)....more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Scope of IPR Estoppel

WilmerHale on

In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more

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

Estoppel Certification in Reexamination

Estoppel certification in reexamination prevents relitigation of resolved issues....more

Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.

Understanding the PTAB’s Recent Informative Decision: Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v. Sfara, Inc.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR)...more

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.

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

BakerHostetler

How Administrative Law Became the Hottest Topic in Patent Disputes at the Federal Circuit

BakerHostetler on

What comes to mind when you think of “hot topics” in patent law? Subject matter eligibility? Obviousness? Damages? Quietly, administrative law has moved to the top of the list of issues that consume the attention of the Court...more

11 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