In SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), the Supreme Court held that an IPR final written decision must address every challenged claim. The PTAB responded by issuing amended Institution Decisions, adding all...more
The Supreme Court issued two decisions today in the cases of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al., and SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, addressing inter partes review (IPR). In Oil States, the...more
4/25/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently found that the scope of inter partes review estoppel was limited to only those grounds specifically instituted in an IPR proceeding, applying the standard set...more
The Supreme Court held oral argument Monday, November 27, in the case of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al. to address the question of whether inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently issued a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for remands from the Federal Circuit. Remands of America Invents Act trials (IPR, CBM, and PGR) and ex parte and reexamination...more
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Aqua Products “the burden of proving the unpatentability of all claims in an IPR—both original and amended—is on the petitioner.” Five opinions (including one...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that to find a “required and established place of business” for venue in a civil action for patent infringement, the court must identify “a physical place, of business,...more
UPDATE: The PTAB has designated this decision as “informative,” which is a category one step below precedential used to provide guidance for future panels.
An expanded panel of the PTAB recently provided additional guidance...more
An expanded panel of the PTAB recently provided additional guidance on when it may exercise its discretion not to institute proceedings. Petitioner General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. originally challenged two patents in IPR...more
Kilpatrick Townsend attorneys Andy Rinehart and Dr. Jennifer Giordano-Coltart recently presented their assessment of trends in patent litigation and prosecution at the firm’s annual patent CLE in Research Triangle Park....more
On Wednesday, September 7, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358 and 7,776,072 were not obvious, in part because certain cited prior art was not “disseminated or otherwise made available...more
The Federal Circuit recently reversed the PTAB’s cancellation of a patent directed to point-to-point communications in a dynamically addressed network. Sipnet EU S.R.O. has challenged U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704 held by...more