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
The PTAB designated as precedential a January 2019 panel decision relating to the bar on instituting an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) when the petitioner previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of the...more
Last week, the PTAB denied a rehearing request by a patent owner who asserted that the PTAB’s institution decision failed to comply with PTAB rules, specifically 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, because the institution decision only...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit granted, in part, a panel rehearing request and remanded an IPR to the PTAB in view of SAS to address claims that were not initially instituted by the Board. Broad Ocean Tech., LLC v. Nidec...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB denied a petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information directed to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ooma, Inc. v. Deep Green Wireless LLC,...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination. Fox Factory, Inc....more
In a series of recent decisions, the PTAB denied institution on a dozen petitions on related patents because of one problem it identified in the petitioner’s arguments. All of the petitioner’s proposed grounds challenged the...more
In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-01389, Paper 62 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2017), the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to stay two reexaminations of patents that were also the subject of pending IPR...more
In Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC v. Power Integrations, IPR2016-00809, Paper 65 (PTAB Aug. 4, 2017), the PTAB denied the patent owner’s request for authorization to serve requests for production seeking documents...more
In Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Magistrate Judge Payne recommended that estoppel under §315(e) apply broadly against Microsoft in an upcoming patent infringement trial scheduled for early June 2017. No....more
In Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-02072, Dkt. No. 366 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) (Slip Op.), the court held IBM was estopped from asserting obviousness under §103...more