Director Vidal recently vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to deny institution of three petitions for inter partes review (IPR), citing insufficient explanation for denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). ...more
On November 6, 2023, the PTAB issued an decision instituting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 B2 (“the ’009 patent”) in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 16 (PTAB...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Acerta Pharma B.V. (IPR2023-00478), a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied IPR institution where the asserted prior art was cumulative of that considered during prosecution. This denial...more
On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...more
In its second-ever Final Written Decision in a derivation proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) determined that a patent application for a biocidal composition and method of producing said biocidal...more
Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) recently faced the issue of determining whether U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ‘823 patent”) is a pre- or post-AIA patent. Hedging its bets, Samsung concurrently filed two petitions—one...more
The Federal Circuit recently held, in Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., that a disclaimer in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not binding on the USPTO in the same proceeding in which the disclaimer is made....more
On November 18, 2022, a panel of three PTAB administrative patent judges denied a Patent Owner’s Request for Additional Discovery in Twitter, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center Inc., IPR2021-01398. The PTAB found that...more
Patent Owner, IP Bridge, filed a patent infringement suit against Petitioner, Ericsson, for infringement of seven of its patents directed at radio communication between a base station and a mobile station and related...more