On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more
5/10/2024
/ Denial of Institution ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Vacated
On June 1, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decisions in ClearOne, Inc. v. Shure Acquisition Holdings, Inc. regarding classification of the...more
We recently wrote about the Federal Circuit’s 2020 decision in Donner Technology, LLC. v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, where the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s denial of an obviousness challenge due to its finding that the prior...more
The USPTO designated Snap, Inc. v. SRK Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00820 (PTAB October 21, 2020) (Paper 15) (“Snap”) as precedential as to § II.A regarding its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes...more
In Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550 (PTAB March 17, 2020) (Paper 8), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, exercising its discretion to deny “follow-on petitions”...more
In November, the PTAB Bar Association held its annual Thought Leader Summit. The Summit highlighted recent changes to PTAB practice, with a keynote address from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.
In the opening remarks, Director...more
12/19/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Phillips Standard ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Section 101
The United States District Court for the Central District of California recently denied Defendant Adobe Systems Inc.’s motion to stay litigation pending resolution of parallel inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before...more
6/21/2019
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Motion To Stay ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Section 337 ,
Third-Party