In Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit recently found 35 U.S.C. § 285 did not authorize the Court awarding attorney’s fees for conduct occurring at the PTAB. No. 2020-1106, 2020 WL 2961939, at *2...more
On May 5, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated one decision as precedential and removed the precedential designation on another. The newly-designated precedential opinion lays out factors that the PTAB...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential decision, reinforced that an accused infringer can be a “prevailing party” for the purposes of seeking attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it successfully invalidates...more
Samsung successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of several of Papst’s patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,189,437. Prior to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding the claims of the ’437 patent...more
In General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., Case No. IPR2017-00491 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (Weatherly, APJ) (designated precedential on Sept. 9, 2019), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute...more
On August 29, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential its January 31, 2019 decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc. In Cisco, the PTAB held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) bars...more
A magistrate judge determined that a prevailing party in a district court litigation could be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees based solely on conduct during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. In September...more
On November 21, 2017, Petitioner Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC, filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 B2. In its Preliminary Response, filed on March 7, 2018, Patent...more
On Friday, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel, colloquially referred to as “the POP,” ruled that the one-year window to file inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions begins once a complaint alleging infringement is...more
The Supreme Court of the United States, brushing aside the position taken by the US Patent and Trademark Office as to the suitability of this case as a vehicle for review, agreed to consider whether a petition for an America...more
Addressing the applicability of issue preclusion in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a patent owner’s arguments on appeal were precluded based on similar...more
On June 24, in Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916 (U.S.), the Supreme Court agreed to review the question whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) vacated its institution decision and terminated an inter partes review (IPR) filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) based on Mylan’s prior counterclaim seeking a...more
Voluntary Dismissal, Real Party in Interest, and Privity—A Trap for the Unwary - An inter partes review is time barred, and may not be instituted, if a petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the...more
On January 11, 2019, Dex Media filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in relevant part)....more
As reported in a prior post, DexMedia, Inc. previously filed an Application for Extension of Time to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting an extension of 30 days in which to file a cert petition challenging the...more
In August, the Federal Circuit addressed the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year time bar to IPR institution in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. In an en banc footnote, the court held that an IPR cannot be instituted...more
As reported in a prior post, the Federal Circuit in Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc) found in a divided 10-2 en banc decision that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The section 315(b) time-bar for IPRs applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) In an appeal of an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed for the first time the...more
Section 315(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) provides that an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the...more
In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB’s treatment of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation as...more
The Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc, Yellow Pages.com, LLC (Case No. 2015-1242), finding that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a lawsuit does not reset...more