A recent PTAB decision in Sattler Tech Corp. v. Lyu represents an important reminder to carefully review the procedural and substantive requirements for filing a petition for an AIA trial, especially when dealing with...more
On November 30, the PTAB entered its final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. 2BCom, LLC on the patentability of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,127,210 (the ‘210 patent).
...more
Recently, Cloudflare Inc. succeeded in convincing the PTAB to institute in IPR2021-00969 against a Sable Network, Inc.’s patent directed toward data flow. While the institution itself is not out of the ordinary—the...more
12/8/2021
/ Crowdsourcing ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Portfolios ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art
The statistics from the PTAB for FY2021 are in, and the total PTAB petitions filed in FY2021 are down a bit from the previous year. A total of 1,401 petitions were filed—IPR (1308) and PGR (93)—compared to 1513 in FY2020,...more
In an inter partes review (IPR), the scope of discovery is expressly stated in the C.F.R. and additional discovery must either be agreed upon by the parties or granted by the Board when it “is necessary in the interest of...more
On October 26, 2021, Chief Administrative Patent Judge (“APJ”) Boalick lifted a May 1, 2020 stay issued by the PTAB pending the Supreme Court’s consideration of Arthrex in which 103 cases were placed in “administrative...more
11/11/2021
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Stays ,
Vacated
Introducing evidence in a motion to file a reply to a patent owner’s preliminary response without the PTAB’s authorization may result in denial and expungement. A recent motion met such a fate in Ice Castles, LLC v....more
Patent Owner (Provisur Technologies) requested authorization to file a motion to strike portions of Petitioner’s (Weber, Inc.) Reply and certain evidence submitted therewith, which Petitioner opposed. Patent Owner argued...more
Rule 42.23(b) is clear, “A sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply...more
We recently reported on bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D) and John Cornyn (R) to significantly revamp certain features of the America Invents Act (AIA), ten years after its debut. This proposed...more
10/22/2021
/ America Invents Act ,
Estoppel ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Legislation ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
Regulatory Standards ,
Standing ,
USPTO
The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2021 through the end of August 2021 (Oct. 1, 2020 through Aug. 31, 2021) stands at 58% (658 instituted, 471 denied) compared to 56% in the previous fiscal year. The Patent...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to extend the Motion to Amend (MTA) pilot program. This program provides additional options for a patent owner...more
The PTAB’s Standard Operating Procedure 2 permits the public to submit nominations for PTAB decisions that an individual believes should be designated as precedential or informative, or to suggest that a decision previously...more
Ocado Group (“Petitioner”) filed a petition requesting a post-grant review of a claim from U.S. Patent No. 10,696,478 (’478 Patent) owned by AutoStore Technology (“Patent Owner”). The Board concluded that the Petitioner did...more
When filing an IPR, petitioners should be careful not to take for granted one of the most fundamental aspects of challenging validity in this forum: Whether or not the relied upon references qualify as prior art. Pursuant to...more
In Microsurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, No. PGR2021-00026, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held that disclaimed claims should be considered for...more
On July 6th and 7th, the USPTO made good on its promise to not wait for a confirmed director to begin Arthrex Director reviews, issuing its first denials of review requests. The full press release is below:...more
8/3/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Sua Sponte ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Microsoft Corporation v. FG SRC, LLC, No. 2020-1928 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2021), is a stark reminder that an IPR petitioner must always set forth its grounds in its petition with...more
On July 20th, the PTAB provided additional clarifications regarding its views on Arthrex and how its interim procedures for requesting Director review will work for cases receiving Final Written Decisions on a going forward...more
7/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The United States Supreme Court has delivered its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, which determined whether appointments of administrative patent judges to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
7/20/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
This blog has previously discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, — F.3d —, No. 2020-1937, 2021 WL 2176796 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021). See Telepharma Disconnect: Federal...more
In its July 1st Boardside Chat, the PTAB discussed the Supreme Court’s recent Arthrex decision and the interim procedure for Director review. The panel included Drew Hirschfeld (Performing the functions and duties of the...more
7/7/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
A Sotera-style stipulation has once again convinced the PTAB to not exercise its discretion to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In Ocado Group PLC v. AutoStore Technology AS,...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
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arthex stating: Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at some level be subject to the...more