On February 28, 2019, GREE, Inc. (“GREE”) filed a Complaint against Supercell Oy (“Supercell”) for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 (the “’594 Patent”), directed to a method for controlling a computer to...more
11/13/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Estoppel ,
Final Written Decisions ,
FRCP 12(f) ,
Motion To Strike ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Prior Art ,
Question of Fact ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
Section 101
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit found the appointments of Patent Trial and Appeal judges unconstitutional, in part because the judges do not receive sufficient oversight from the Director of the United States Patent and...more
11/6/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Officers of the United States ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Presidential Appointments ,
Remand ,
Removal At-Will ,
Vacated
On Thursday, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that PTAB judges have to date been unconstitutional appointments. The panel thinks that it has cured that issue going forward by severing a portion of Title 35 that allows for...more
The status of a parallel district court proceeding may provide a basis for the PTAB to deny institution of an IPR pursuant to § 314(a). NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 12, 2018)...more
In Power Integrations v. Semiconductor Components, the Federal Circuit ruled that privy and real-party-in-interest (RPI) relationships arising after a petition is filed but before institution may bar institution under section...more
6/28/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Chevron Deference ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Mergers ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Privity of Contract ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims
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
In past decisions, the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner appealing a PTAB’s final written decision upholding the patentability of challenged claims after an AIA trial must establish Article III standing. In...more
Further to the PTAB’s efforts to improve the ability of patent owners to amend claims in an AIA trial via the Motion to Amend Pilot program, the USPTO recently issued guidance on other avenues for amending claims of patents...more
On November 26, 2018, the PTAB entered its Final Written Decision in Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., Case IPR2017-01391, denying Patent Owner Alacritech, Inc.’s Motion to Amend in the inter partes review of certain claims of...more
On Monday, the PTAB issued its fourth installment of its ongoing motion to amend study, providing details on motions to amend filed and decided through March 31, 2018. Patent owners have filed a motion to amend in 305 of the...more
We have previously discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which held that the PTAB cannot institute an IPR on only some of the petitioned claims. One open question was...more
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, holding that a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less all claims challenged in...more
In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable. The decision, issued on...more
In an appeal from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings where Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) challenged two patents owned by Paice LLC (“Paice”), the...more
On November 21st, the PTAB issued guidance for motions to amend in post-grant trials based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In line with that...more