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
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
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
On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071,...more
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
The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more
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 April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues. The Notice addresses stakeholder feedback responsive to the...more
5/3/2024
/ Comment Period ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Rules ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
USPTO
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently dismissed and terminated inter partes review challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 patent”). Netflix, Inc. v. Owner, IPR2022-01568, Paper 29 (PTAB March...more
It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ...more
3/29/2024
/ Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board found that the disputed claims regarding transferring digital content were not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) after determining that the prior art cited by the...more
USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently designated precedential section II.E.3 of Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc. and clarified that the priority analysis for an AIA reference patent as prior art is different than for a...more
In IPR2023-01058, the PTAB declined to institute IPR, finding that Patent Owner had disclaimed all challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 243(a), in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a), such that there was no basis on which to...more
The PTAB recently denied IPR institution in Sophos v. Open Text because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted reference was, in fact, prior art. IPR2023-00732, Paper 23 (November 2, 2023)....more
In an increasingly rare exercise of discretion, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under Fintiv in Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2023-00587. The PTAB reasoned that...more
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 PTAB recently granted institution of inter partes review despite the Patent Owner not receiving the petition for the proceeding until three business days after the statutory deadline. See Kahoot! ASA and Kahoot Edu, Inc.,...more
11/6/2023
/ Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Service of Process ,
Statutory Deadlines ,
USPTO
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 March 15, 2022, Facet Technologies, LLC (Plaintiff/Patent Owner) filed an infringement suit against LifeScan, Inc. (Defendant/Petitioner) in U.S. District Court for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,840,635 (the ’635...more
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
The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to determining the pitch of roofs after finding that Petitioner failed to directly challenge the sufficiency of Patent Owner’s priority...more
The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had...more
On July 17, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review petition based on the stature of a related U.S. District Court of...more
In recent decision 3M Company v. Bay Materials, the Board denied 3M Company’s (“Petitioner”) second Petition for inter partes review (“Second Petition”) after exercising its discretion under § 314(a) and finding that each of...more