The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
On Thursday of last week in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corporation, the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions (IPR2015-01584 and IPR2015-01600) finding that a single claim in...more
Addressing the requirements to offer supplemental evidence and information, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the patent owner’s requests for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental...more
Addressing whether a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) can respond to a patent owner’s preliminary response, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied the...more
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that a party need not renew an objection to evidence if...more
National Environmental Products Ltd. v. Dri-Steem Corp.; PNC Bank National Ass’n v. Secure Axcess, LLC - In two recent decisions demonstrating that amending a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with supplemental...more
FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc. - Addressing whether prior-art-related submissions by a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding are supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. 42.123(a) or...more