The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
8/21/2024
/ Claim Construction ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mobile Devices ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Prior Art
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
6/17/2024
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more
11/10/2023
/ Evidentiary Standards ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
10/27/2023
/ Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Gaming ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interference Claims ,
Inventors ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
POSITA ,
Prior Art ,
Software ,
USPTO ,
Zynga
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
10/20/2023
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
USPTO
On August 24, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of inter partes review in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. and remanded the case for further proceedings. ...more
On June 29th, the PTO issued an initial protocol for requesting Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision according to the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision. This Arthrex protocol is similar to the current procedure...more
6/30/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Administrative Review ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Interim Measures ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
Petitioner (Apple, Inc.) filed a petition to institute inter partes on a patent owned by Koss Corporation (Patent Owner). The PTAB considered six factors from Fintiv to assess whether to exercise authority to deny...more
Although the Federal Circuit had previously held that the PTAB may enter adverse judgment when a patent owner disclaims all claims challenged in an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition before an institution decision, in...more
The precedential ruling in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 (PTAB July 6, 2020) allows the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) to raise an issue regarding substitute claims that was...more
In General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00007-RWS, ECF No. 128 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to strike invalidity defenses as barred by IPR estoppel for...more
The estoppel statute precludes a defendant who has challenged a claim in an IPR reaching final written decision from later challenging that claim on any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR...more
On December 17th, the PTAB designated two decisions applying the Fintiv factors as precedential. We will break these cases down in detail in the coming days on the PTAB Litigation Blog. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo...more
The PTAB and District Courts do not always see eye to eye when it comes to prior art. On August 21, 2020, the Board issued a trio of final written decisions refusing to invalidate the claims of three patents, two of which...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of any inter partes review (IPR). Such discretionary denial may be based on a variety of considerations, such as the existence of an ongoing...more
In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and...more
On June 11, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a Boardside Chat webinar to discuss new developments in AIA trials. The discussion featured panelists Vice Chief Judge Michael Tierney and Lead Judge William...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in ESIP Series 2 v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, No. 19-1659, held that the “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”) bars judicial review of PTAB determinations regarding...more
The full Federal Circuit denied rehearing in Polaris. Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Company, No. 2018-1831. As previously discussed, both the U.S. government and Polaris requested rehearing after the court...more
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more
2/19/2020
/ Final Written Decisions ,
Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Samsung ,
Section 112
On January 31, 2020, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in view of Arthrex, but did so reluctantly because it disagreed with the merits and questioned the...more
2/15/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew excited and disrupted the patent world... Inter partes review (IPR) reshaped patent law and patent litigation this decade after the America Invents Act took effect....more
12/17/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Briefs ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition For Rehearing ,
Remand ,
Statutory Authority ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit has held that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") were in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U.S....more
During an inter partes review (IPR), it is usually the Petitioner that raises grounds of unpatentability against a Motion to Amend that the Patent Owner must defend in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Is the...more
Following on Judge Newman’s dissent in Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., parties are seeking to preserve their rights by challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding that a party’s failure to raise...more