In a 2-1 decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied a patent owner’s motion to file two new declarations in connection with its sur-reply, holding that the patent owner failed to prove the extraordinary...more
The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for a patent directed to geothermal technology. Fervo Energy Co. v. Ormat Techs. Inc., IPR2014-00665, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2024). The claimed invention related to...more
The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (“PREVAIL”) Act has moved to the Senate for a full vote after passing the Senate Judiciary Committee vote 11-10 on November 21, 2024. In...more
12/18/2024
/ Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Legislative Agendas ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Legislation ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
USPTO
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution in an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding that an online store’s assertion regarding when a product was “first available” is by itself insufficient evidence of...more
“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution...more
The PTAB recently denied Bestway (USA), Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) request for PGR of U.S. Pat. No. 11,959,512 B2 (“the ’512 patent”) but declined to enter adverse judgment against Intex Marketing, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) for...more
On October 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) to identify the date on which it learned of each patent, patent application, and printed...more
The PTAB recently excluded a portion of Duration Media LLC’s (Petitioner) reply declaration for containing improper new evidence in an inter partes review petition filed against Rich Media Club LLC (Patent Owner) challenging...more
“The statutory provisions for inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered-business method patent reviews caution against overly broad discovery and provide the same considerations, including efficient administration...more
On September 24, 2024, the PTAB denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding initiated by Inari Agriculture, Inc. (Petitioner) against Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Patent Owner). The patent at issue was U.S....more
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) released a final written decision finding no challenged claims were unpatentable in Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLC, IPR2023-00953, Paper 74 (August 19, 2024). ...more
On June 12, 2024, the USPTO issued a final rule governing the pre-issuance circulation and review of decisions within the PTAB. This formalized current USPTO procedures within the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP4) adopted...more
The PTAB denied institution of inter partes review reasoning that Petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. The...more
The Federal Circuit dismissed Platinum Optics Technology Inc.’s (PTOT) appeal from an IPR decision, finding the challenged claims of Viavi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369 not unpatentable, because PTOT failed to establish an...more
The USPTO has extended the public comment deadline in order to afford all stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in on the subject matter eligibility of AI inventions....more
9/23/2024
/ Artificial Intelligence ,
Comment Period ,
Deadlines ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Machine Learning ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Public Comment ,
USPTO
On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more
On July 30, 2024, Director Vidal ordered patent board judges to revisit a ruling on “an obvious typographical error.” See Hesai Technology Co. Ltd., Hesai Group, and Hesai Inc. v. Ouster, Inc., IPR2023-01485. Director Vidal,...more
In 2016, the Federal Circuit expressed doubt that claim constructions from the PTAB could give rise to estoppel in later litigation because “the [PTAB] applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the...more
In Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology International Limited, Inc, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision finding obvious all challenged claims of the ‘429 patent, which relates to a device that provides ports for...more
The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision in SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. clarifying the scope of patent owner estoppel set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i). 2024 WL 3543902 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024). The regulation...more
In a sua sponte Director Review, USPTO Director Vidal vacated an adverse judgement against Patent Owner for Patent Owner’s failure to submit a mandatory notice of information or file a preliminary response to a Petition...more
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
Koss filed a patent infringement suit against Bose asserting the ’155, ’934, and ’025 patents, after which Bose petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents before the PTAB. The district court case was stayed...more
8/13/2024
/ Appeals ,
Final Judgment ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Mootness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, reversed-in-part and remanded-in-part the Board’s decision in the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (the “’096 patent”), and affirmed the Board’s decision as to the cross...more
The Situation: Concerns that uncertain and unpredictable patent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence thwarts U.S. economic and technological advancements are especially acute in the fast advancing AI space. Stakeholders...more