4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post Grant Radio: Episode #16: Kevin McNish, McNish PLLC
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #14: Tom Rozylowicz
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. In certain circumstances, the PTAB will discretionarily deny a petition because another petition challenging the same patent...more
The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...more
On April 5, 2024, Director Vidal vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) denial of institution of inter partes review (IPR) where the Petitioner relied on a drawing in a prior art patent document to...more
Director Vidal recently vacated three discretionary denials of institution after finding that the three petitioners did not have a “significant relationship” with a prior petitioner. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Neo...more
On September 21, 2023, the PTAB denied United Services Automobile Association’s petition to institute inter partes review of Auto Telematics’s U.S. Patent No. 9,633,487. IPR2023-00519, Paper 10....more
In an increasingly rare exercise of discretion, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under Fintiv in Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v. Ningde Amperex Technology Limited, IPR2023-00587. The PTAB reasoned that...more
The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had...more
In a sua sponte review, USPTO Director Kathy Vidal continued her refinement of the PTAB’s “discretionary denial” practice. Specifically, the Director vacated the Board’s decision to deny institution in Volvo Penta of the...more
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 20 seeking comments on proposed changes to America Invents Act trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and...more
In 2021, an organization of patent owners and various patent-holding companies sued the USPTO in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent owners sought to force the USPTO Director to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more
In an IPR institution decision issued shortly after the USPTO issued interim guidance on discretionary denials, the PTAB held that the petition presented “compelling evidence of unpatentability,” foreclosing a Fintiv...more
Please join Troutman Pepper’s Intellectual Property and Health Sciences Practice Group for the second season and first installment of our podcast series focused on strategy, trends, and other happenings at the PTAB. In this...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted the institution of an inter partes review in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, despite the existence of a parallel proceeding in the US District Court for the...more
The USPTO recently issued new guidance on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will apply Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., a 2020 precedential decision which laid out considerations for denying institution of a post-grant...more
The USPTO has issued interim procedures curbing the PTAB’s discretionary denials over post-grant proceedings associated with parallel ITC proceedings or district court litigation. ...more
On June 22, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued two documents regarding the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's discretionary denials of post-grant challenges based on parallel litigation: a retrospective study of...more
The PTAB recently denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) for claims 1 and 46 of U.S. 7,464,040 in eClinicalWorks, LLC et al. v. Decapolis Systems, LLC, IPR2022-0229, Paper 10 (PTAB April 13, 2022). The denial was...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding because the petitioner failed to show the challenged patent was eligible for PGR. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner’s evidence,...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified that the scope of IPR estoppel in district courts includes prior art grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in a petition for inter partes review (IPR), reversing...more
Mylan appealed from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) discretionary denial of institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The Board declined to institute Mylan’s IPR under NHK-Fintiv, a multi-factor analysis...more
In November 2020, Google LLC filed two petitions requesting an inter partes review of the claims of Ikorongo Technology LLC (“Ikorongo”) owned U.S. Patent No. 8,874,554 (“the ’554 patent”)....more
Alarm.com filed three petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against Vivint, Inc.’s ’513 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board or PTAB) denied institution of the first two petitions because Alarm.com had failed to...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
* The Federal Circuit has just issued an additional decision in this dispute today. We will cover that development further shortly. In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board granted institution of inter...more
On Oct. 28, 2021, the Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition to Apple’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC et al. (No. 21-118). The government argued that the Federal Circuit...more