Closing Arguments: Focus and Organization
Closing Argument: Opportunity and Challenge
How to Make Clear, Quick and Effective Objections
More on Cross-Examination: Building a Case Brick by Brick
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Don't Ask One Question Too Many
Podcast - The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination
Podcast - Refresh vs. Impeach: Know the Difference
Podcast - Impeaching with a Deposition
Podcast - Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses
Cross-Examination: The Three C’s of Impeachment
Cross-Examination: How to Effectively Impeach with a Prior Inconsistent Statement
Cross-Examination: Finding Control
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Don't Argue - Elicit Facts
Cross-Examination: Asking the Right Leading Questions
Podcast - Cross-Examination: The Importance of Organization
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 20: Tips for Court Cases with Judge Dennis and Judge Wilkins of Maynard Nexsen
Understanding When to Cross-Examine
Podcast - Cross-Examination: Basic Approaches
The "Why" of Cross-Examination
Basic Points to Consider in Redirect Examination
The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that, “[t]o date, a substantial majority of patents have been challenged with a single petition.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November 2019) at 59. However, “the Board...more
The Federal Circuit in Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, and Stark) affirmed a PTAB decision finding anticipated and/or obvious certain claims of two patents directed...more
Since the introduction of inter partes review proceedings in 2012, AIA trial practice has been constantly evolving and the USPTO has signaled that big changes may be ahead. Starting with the USPTO director’s 2022 memorandum...more
In a series of related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted a petitioner’s motion to strike the sworn affidavit of a witness who was unwilling to submit to cross-examination. In...more
Patent Owner (Provisur Technologies) requested authorization to file a motion to strike portions of Petitioner’s (Weber, Inc.) Reply and certain evidence submitted therewith, which Petitioner opposed. Patent Owner argued...more
Rule 42.23(b) is clear, “A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - In Re MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. [ORDER] (2021-146, 9/8/21) (O’Malley, Reyna, Chen) - Reyna, J. Denying mandamus petition and dismissing appeal. The Court declined to...more
Discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, governed by 37 CFR § 42.51, are more limited in scope and timing compared to cases in district court. There are three types of discovery at the Patent Trial...more
Although the PTAB had previously stated that it would “rarely” be appropriate for a petitioner to file multiple petitions against the same patent, in Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Intertrust Technologies Corp., IPR 2020-01104;...more
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
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) designated new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) precedents protecting patent owners from multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges. The Board decisions included...more
The results of a recent update to the PTAB Multiple Petition Study show Petitioners face an uphill battle when attempting to utilize a multiple petition strategy. These results, discussed during the December 10, 2020...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 authors have recently proposed alternative analyses for the discretionary denial of IPR and PGR petitions involved in parallel district court litigation, as well as for the discretionary denial of serial petitions filed...more
On December 8th, the PTAB published a Final Rule, formalizing a number of PTAB practices dictated by case law and described in the current Trial Practice Guide. The one substantive change of note is the removal to deference...more
On October 20, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”) published in the Federal Register “Request for Comments on Discretion To Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”...more
The rate at which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institutes Petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) has been in steady decline since the introduction of the IPR procedure in 2013, and is expected to...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 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
On July 13, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) designated two decisions informative that apply the NHK factors for determining whether the PTAB will exercise its discretion to deny inter partes review...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has designated two key institution decisions as “Informative.” With these informative decisions, the PTAB has provided guidance on how the PTAB will apply efficiency and fairness...more
On May 27, 2020, the USPTO announced a notice of proposed rulemaking that would affect IPR, PGR and CBM proceedings. Most significantly, the proposed rules would eliminate the presumption in favor of petitioners for material...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
While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appears to be fully embracing virtual and remote platforms to continue business as usual during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Circuit has had a mixed response. The Court has...more