Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review: Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC found a rule set file used by a network security program to be a...more
On August 6, 2024, the PTAB issued its first written decision applying a new test for obviousness of design patents. In Next Step Group, Inc. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., IPR2024-00525, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024)...more
The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. v. Viavi...more
In denying Petitioner Medivis, Inc.’s (“Medivis”) Request for Rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp. inter partes review, the PTAB found that...more
The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that certain challenged claims of a patent for a method for aligning a laser projector with respect to a work surface are...more
Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed one and vacated another Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in which the PTAB determined that Weber Inc. (“Weber”) failed to...more
EcoFactor, Inc. is the holder of U.S. Patent No. 8,498,753, titled “System, Method and Apparatus for Just-In-Time Conditioning Using a Thermostat,” which focuses on optimizing climate control systems, particularly HVAC...more
On February 14, 2024, Seagen requested director review of the PTAB’s January 16th Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in PGR2021-00030 finding antibody-drug conjugate claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,808,039 (the “’039 patent”)...more
Precedential Decisions - Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) (regarding prior art status under AIA § 102) The Director designated as precedential...more
In 2023, Fintiv—the precedential Order issued in 2020 that established a six-factor framework that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) applies when evaluating whether to exercise its discretion to institute an America...more
RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Phillip Morris Products S.A., No. 2022-1862 (Fed. Cir. February 9, 2024) addressed two issues: (1) when the written description requirement is met in the context of a claimed range that is...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more
Join litigation shareholder Libbie DiMarco as she breaks down the latest developments for mitigating ITC remedial orders with effective litigation strategies ranging from product redesigns (and when to introduce them) to PTAB...more
This year we are covering three claim construction cases from the Federal Circuit—one coming from the Board and the two from district court. Taken together, the cases are a good reminder of the high burden that a party must...more
In Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al., Nos. 22-1493, 22-1547 (Fed. Cir. 2023), Sierra Wireless challenged claims 1-10 of Sisvel’s U.S. Patent No. 6,529,561 (“the ’561 patent”) in an inter partes review....more
On March 31, 2023, Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd. (“Zhuhai”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,329,352 (“the ’352 Patent”), assigned to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd....more
On November 15, 2023, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Kathi Vidal designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse,...more
In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim...more
In Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB decision finding certain claims of a patent owned by Elekta Limited (“Elekta”) to be unpatentable, even though the PTAB decision...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held all challenged claims of IGT’s patent unpatentable as obvious over two prior art patents. Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199-32. In doing so, the PTAB further held that, contrary to...more
At the Inter Partes review trial, Patent Owner attempted to swear behind Petitioner’s primary prior art reference by showing that the inventors of the asserted patents had conceived of the invention before the priority date...more
This case addresses the legal standard for inherent anticipation. The ’127 patent is directed to an invention that provides stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (“SNALP”) that have non-lamellar structure and “comprise a...more
In Medytox, Inc. v. Galderma S.A, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) that found Medytox’s proposed substitute claims invalid and denied Medytox’s motion to...more
This decision addresses the PTAB’s secondary considerations analysis in an IPR Final Written Decision. Background - Appellant Yita sought inter partes review of two patents sharing a specification, both of which are...more