The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2024 through the end of April 2024 (the period from Oct. 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024) stands at 66% (427 instituted, 230 denied). This rate remains flat compared to the...more
In GeigTech East Bay v. Lutron Electronics, patent owner GeigTech argued that Lutron should be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2) from asserting two prior art grounds that it said Lutron could have reasonably raised in its...more
The PTAB considers the six Fintiv factors to determine whether to exercise its discretion to deny institution of an IPR petition in view of a parallel litigation. In that analysis, Fintiv factor four requires the PTAB to...more
The PTAB may sua sponte raise unpatentability grounds based upon the prior art of record when reviewing a motion to amend. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45, 51 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It is now clear, however, that the PTAB...more
By creating the new precedential Fintiv factors, the PTAB provides guidance on what it will consider when deciding whether to deny institution of an IPR petition challenging patent claims that are also being litigated in a...more
The PTAB has explained that it has discretion to deny an IPR petition even if the petitioner has shown that it meets the statutory threshold for institution, which requires “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the...more
The status of a parallel district court proceeding may provide a basis for the PTAB to deny institution of an IPR pursuant to § 314(a). NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 12, 2018)...more
The PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) has concluded that the one-year time bar for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered by the service of a complaint alleging infringement even if “the serving...more
In an order designated precedential, the PTAB terminated an instituted IPR proceeding after the petitioner failed to establish that no real parties in interest (“RPI”) or privies had been served with a complaint more than one...more
In Microsoft Corp. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the PTAB refused to stay ten IPRs filed by Microsoft while Patent Owner St. Regis appeals a Federal Circuit decision that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in an IPR...more
In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00761, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2018), the PTAB denied institution of Shenzhen Silver Star’s IPR petition in view of an earlier challenge to the same patent by...more
In Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, No. 2016-1671, 2018 WL 2407172 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that had sustained the patentability of claim 1 of U.S. Patent...more
A recent PTAB decision underscores the importance of establishing the level of ordinary skill for a successful obviousness challenge. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2017-00058, Paper 17 (PTAB Apr. 6, 2018). It is...more
There is no doubt that “the potential for estoppel is one of the important considerations for defendants in deciding whether or not to file an [inter partes review (“IPR”)] petition.” Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel...more
In Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., Nos. 2016-2080, -2082, -2083, 2017 WL 6613262 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2017), a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that Microsoft failed to...more
On November 16, 2017, the PTAB announced its revised Standard Operating Procedure for decisions remanded from the Federal Circuit for further proceedings. In SOP 9, the PTAB provides guidance to panels and parties that...more