Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
JONES DAY TALKS®: Appointments of PTAB Judges Ruled Unconstitutional ... What Now?
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director vacated Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that presented a sua sponte construction of a claim term in dispute, holding that the parties were not...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
Axonics petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by Medtronic. The challenged claims relate to a neurostimulation lead and a method for implanting and anchoring the lead. The patents’ “Field of the Invention” section states...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
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
Google petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by IPA. Each of the asserted grounds relied on the Martin reference. Martin lists as authors the two inventors of the challenged patents and a third person, Dr. Moran. During...more
NVIDIA petitioned for IPR of two patents owned by Polaris. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable. Polaris appealed. While on appeal, the final written decisions in those IPRs were vacated and the proceedings were...more
Atlanta Gas petitioned for inter partes review of Bennett’s ’029 patent. The Board initially rejected Bennett’s argument that Atlanta Gas was time barred from petitioning for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Inter partes review (IPR) proceedings raise complex estoppel issues that courts are grappling with and patent litigants must consider. Because patent challengers can assert invalidity in three different tribunals (the...more
In 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued four opinions regarding US design patents— two precedential opinions and two unprecedential opinions. Both precedential opinions, In re SurgiSil and Campbell...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
Intel Corp. petitioned for six inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675, a patent directed to power management in wireless devices. In each proceeding, Intel and patent-owner Qualcomm...more
This year, we will mark the 10-year anniversary of the first jury verdict in the landmark IP litigation between Apple and Samsung, which resulted in the jury awarding more than $1B to Apple. More than $500M of that award was...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
On November 1, 2021, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted the first “Director review” to Samsung SDI Co. Director review is a new interim procedure that allows a party to seek review of a final written...more
Now that it’s been roughly a month since the Federal Circuit issued mass sua sponte Arthrex orders (which we discussed in Early Hints About What Happens Next After Arthrex), we thought it was worth checking in on what’s...more
New Vision Gamingi touches on an interesting forum-selection issue currently before the Federal Circuit in at least one other case. The issue is the enforceability of a forum-selection clause in an agreement between parties...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Network-1 sued HP, among others, for patent infringement. Another defendant then filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition. Following institution, HP filed its own petition on different grounds and a motion to join the...more
In General Access Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00007-RWS, ECF No. 128 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to strike invalidity defenses as barred by IPR estoppel for...more
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A party has standing to appeal an adverse IPR decision if it has concrete...more
In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s holding that joinder petitioner Hewlett Packard (“HP”) (1) could have tried to raise new grounds in its...more
In Alacritech, Inc. v. Intel Corp, Judge Stoll held that under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “[the Federal Circuit’s] review of a patentability determination is confined to ‘the grounds upon which the Board actually...more
In vacating an unpatentability decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the rights of a joined party to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding applies...more