Inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs) are proceedings in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that allow a petitioner to challenge a patent’s validity and a patent owner to defend that...more
The question of whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has any right to examine a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review or post...more
With this decision, the US Supreme Court again prioritizes giving the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) a second chance to review and potentially weed out “bad patents,” over permitting parties the opportunity to challenge...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year after...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP[i], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)[ii], which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declining to apply the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)....more
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Thryv, Inc. fka Dex Media Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP on the question of whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - On December 9, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Case No. 18-916. The case involves the proper application of Section 315(b) of the...more
Judicial review of post-grant patent proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is limited, but a federal court of appeals has somewhat loosened the restriction. On January 8, 2018, in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom...more
In inter partes review proceedings, is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board required to take into account a final district court determination of non-obviousness of the same claims based on the...more
The America Invents Act provided several procedures for challenging the validity of patent claims, including inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”) and covered business method patent challenges (“CBM”). An...more
One of the aspects of inter partes review that differed from other post-grant review proceedings before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (succeeded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) is a requirement for...more
Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo - Why it matters: On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more
In Depth - The Supreme Court of the United States (Justice Breyer writing for the majority) affirmed a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision barring judicial review of most decisions regarding institution...more
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more
This week in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the United States Supreme Court decided two important questions related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over inter partes review proceedings. First,...more
Supreme Court sides with Patent Office’s rulemaking authority. On Monday, June 20, 2016, the US Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited Cuozzo decision, affirming the Federal Circuit’s decision. Specifically, the Court: ...more
The Supreme Court issued a decision this week that is significant for all companies that operate in patent-intensive industries. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, — S.Ct. — (2016), the Supreme Court considered...more
On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more
This article contains important information relating to recent developments in patent law and, as such, is intended for an audience that either currently owns a patent or is in the process of obtaining one. The Supreme...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 3369425 (June 20, 2016) upheld the Patent Office’s long-held policy of construing a patent claim according to its broadest...more
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, No. 15-4461, an appeal of an institution and cancellation decision in the first-ever petition for inter partes review...more
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court handed a victory to the Patent Office, affirming its broad discretion in the institution and management of post-issuance proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith...more