Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
On appeal from a motion to dismiss based on subject matter eligibility, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a district court appropriately analyzed certain claims as representative claims and that the...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
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
The patent claim survival rate before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board continues to strongly favor petitioners. Accordingly, motions to amend the challenged claims have been growing among patent owners in inter partes...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Netflix, Inc. (July 22, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) may consider, in its review of substitute claims proposed in an inter partes review...more
Last week a Federal Circuit panel in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC issued an important decision regarding inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on two questions concerning contingent motions to...more
Last week, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for substitute claims. The appeal raises issues of finality...more
In November, the PTAB Bar Association held its annual Thought Leader Summit. The Summit highlighted recent changes to PTAB practice, with a keynote address from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. In the opening remarks, Director...more
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board....more
In two recent cases, the Federal Circuit addressed the role of factual questions in resolving patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The first case was Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and the second was Aatrix Software v. Green...more
Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions (No. 2015-1425, 1438, 5/31/16) (Prost, Reyna, Stark) - May 31, 2016 3:11 PM - Reyna, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patents based on...more
PTAB Ignores District Court Claim Construction, Finds Patent Invalid - On February 19, 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in the Covered Business Method (CBM) patent...more
The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more
Among other topics, a recent web conference hosted by George Quillin and Jeff Costakos tackled the latest developments in amendment practice before the PTAB. The conference addressed the very recent Federal Circuit...more
In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) agreed with the petitioner that the original challenged claims were unpatentable but at the same time granted the patent owner’s motion to amend,...more
Earlier this week, we noted that parties wishing to challenge IPR Final Written Decisions from the PTAB on appeal to the Federal Circuit would face an uphill challenge. However, even if that challenge is extremely difficult,...more
Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) added a recent order to its list of Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices. See MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB July 15, 2015). ...more