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
Although provisional applications can be used to secure an earlier date for 102(e), the petitioner bears the burden of production in establishing a prior art date for the asserted prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
The PTAB recently exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to deny institution of inter partes review for inefficient use of the PTAB’s time and resources notwithstanding that the petitioner met the threshold for...more
In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., the PTAB determined that a time-barred third party was not a real party in interest (“RPI”) and granted institution. IPR2022-00615, Paper 20 (Oct. 19, 2022) at 19...more
A PTAB panel recently denied Linquet Technologies, Inc.’s (“Patent Owner”) motion to dismiss an IPR proceeding as moot despite a district court having already invalidated the patent because the final written decision had...more
The PTAB recently hosted a Boardside Chat on effectively presenting technology in AIA proceedings. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Boardside Chat: Presenting Technology in AIA Proceedings, (Nov. 17, 2022) (“Presenting...more
A PTAB panel recently denied IPR institution where one of the asserted prior art references was non-analogous and thus the POSITA would not have made the proposed § 103 combination. The Chamberlain Group, LLC v. Overhead...more
The USPTO released a study in June 2022 that analyzed the prevalence of Fintiv denials occurring between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. The Study focused on data illustrating how often patent owners raised parallel...more
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more
2/10/2022
/ 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ,
Apple ,
CAFC ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
Qualcomm ,
Statutory Interpretation
In Mylan Labs Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V., the Federal Circuit reaffirmed it lacked jurisdiction over appeals from the PTAB denying IPR institution, noted that it had jurisdiction over requests for mandamus, but that...more
Holding its first mock oral arguments, the PTAB provided LEAP eligible participants with a unique opportunity to argue in front of PTAB judges. On August 7, 2020, mock oral PTAB hearings were held virtually with 40 LEAP...more
8/21/2020
/ Bar Associations ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
LEAP ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Mock Trials ,
Oral Argument ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
Trial Preparation ,
USPTO ,
Young Lawyers
In Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall, LLC, the Federal Circuit recently found 35 U.S.C. § 285 did not authorize the Court awarding attorney’s fees for conduct occurring at the PTAB. No. 2020-1106, 2020 WL 2961939, at *2...more
6/22/2020
/ 35 U.S.C. § 285 ,
Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) ,
American Rule ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Generic Drugs ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Orange Book ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Voluntary Dismissals
As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. Here is an in depth review of the informative decision.
On March 24, 2020,the PTAB designated two sections of...more
Determining the Real Party-in-Interest (“RPI”) in an IPR can have critical implications for estoppel. A patent owner can prevent institution of an IPR by showing that an RPI has previously “filed a civil action challenging...more
In Apple v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, the patent owner moved to amend the claims contingent on an unpatentability finding by the Board. The contingent amendment cancelled the original claims and replaced them with a new claim set. The...more