On August 24, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Volvo Penta of the Ams. LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Case No. 22-1765, vacated a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding...more
In our penultimate patent owner tip for surviving an instituted IPR, we turn our discussion to defending the deposition of your expert. At this stage of the proceeding, your Patent Owner Response has been filed, and all the...more
After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner has an opportunity to file a motion to amend the claims and thereby propose a reasonable number of substitute claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). Unlike the...more
Discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, governed by 37 CFR § 42.51, are more limited in scope and timing compared to cases in district court. There are three types of discovery at the Patent Trial...more
5/28/2021
/ Additional Discovery ,
America Invents Act ,
Discovery ,
Garmin Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO
Drafting the expert declaration is another critical task for Patent Owners during the inter partes review (“IPR”) discovery period. As noted in our previous post, IPR expert witnesses provide declarations as affirmative...more
If you are a patent owner facing an inter partes review (“IPR”) or other post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), your best chance of success is to convince the PTAB not to institute a trial. But that...more
Venue selection is a critical component to any patent enforcement strategy, even before the inception of the PTAB as we know it today. Venue now has even greater importance, as the speed of your patent case (i.e. time to...more
On Monday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Cal Technologies, the Supreme Court held that § 315(b) time-bar determinations are not subject to judicial review. In this 7-2 decision penned by Justice Ginsburg, with Justices Gorsuch...more
4/22/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
This week the en banc Federal Circuit declined to revisit a panel ruling that found the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) violates the Appointments Clause of...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cannot cancel claims for indefiniteness in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The case is Samsung Electronics...more
n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
11/4/2019
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Federal Rules of Evidence ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Appointments ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Principle Officers ,
Remand ,
Removal At-Will ,
USPTO ,
Vacated
California jury recently awarded Apple $538.6 million in total damages for patent infringement by Samsung. This is the latest development in the patent battle between smartphone industry titans that began in 2011 and took...more
6/1/2018
/ Apple ,
Apple v Samsung ,
Article of Manufacture ,
Design Patent ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Samsung ,
SCOTUS ,
Smartphones ,
Special Damages
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a propose change to the standard for construing both unexpired and amended patent claims in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings under the America Invents Act...more
5/9/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Comment Period ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Rules ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in February that it was wrong for a judge to rule that a patent was ineligible under the Alice standard because there were underlying factual disputes that could not be...more
n its first en banc decision of 2018, the Federal Circuit held that “judicial review is available for a patent owner to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s determination that the petitioner satisfied the...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aqua Products Inc., v. Matal materially changes the burden of proof associated with the patentability of amended claims during an inter partes...more
New rules for patent cases in the Northern District of California will significantly affect litigation and settlement of cases in Silicon Valley’s backyard. Lawyers litigating cases in the district after the January 17, 2017...more
Two years after the Central District of California invalidated two 3-D animation patents under Section 101, the Federal Circuit reversed that court’s decision, finding that the lower court oversimplified the claims of a...more
Several months ago, we were struck with the question of whether, as counsel for a patent owner at the ITC, our clients’ case would benefit from a Markman hearing. Claim construction during an ITC investigation was routinely...more
Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v....more
On December 17, 2015, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) ruled that, in light of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice”), a plaintiff’s position on...more
1/8/2016
/ Attorney's Fees ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Exceptional Case ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Software Patents ,
Totality of Circumstances Test
2015 was a busy year for post-grant review appeals at the Federal Circuit and produced notable opinions in the areas of claim construction, IPR procedural issues, and the constitutionality of IPRs in general. In 2015, the...more
On December 14, 2015, in the latest episode of the smartphone wars, Samsung filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. Samsung is appealing a Federal Circuit decision that upheld a $399 million judgment against...more
Mintz Levin has won extraordinary relief for its client, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., convincing the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an IPR final written decision adverse to a patent owner for the first...more
Mintz Levin has won extraordinary relief for its client, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., convincing the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an IPR final written decision adverse to a patent owner for the first...more