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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited (IPR2023-01219), recently denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent on a lighting system and control for...more
The PTAB recently denied a motion to dismiss a Revised Petition and terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding despite Petitioner’s alleged withdrawal of the Original Petition and failure to comply with the word limit...more
USPTO News - On September 9, 2021, Senators Patrick Leahy and Thom Tillis wrote a letter to Acting Director Andrew Hirshfeld requesting that the USPTO “take steps to reduce patent applicants’ making inappropriate...more
A June 25, 2021 decision by the PTAB has clarified that when paying the filing fee via wire transfer, the inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filing date is based upon when the funds are made available to the USPTO. ...more
The PTAB’s denial of Apple’s attempt to join Microsoft’s IPR suggests increased hurdles for copycat petitions. Serial petitions will be heavily scrutinized and often denied using the General Plastic factors, even when the...more
Last week, four major technology companies – Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel – brought suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), challenging its authority to reject petitions for inter...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated two decisions as precedential and a third as informative in cases where the PTAB considered whether to exercise 35 USC § 325(d) discretion to deny petitions where the same...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated two more opinions as “precedential” dealing with its discretion to reject petitions for inter partes review (IPR) or similar post-grant reviews. Under 35 U.S.C. §...more
A recent trend at the PTAB has shown timing is everything, and bad timing is held against Petitioner when considering discretionary denial....more
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of standing an appeal filed by an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner of a final written decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held two...more
On the same day that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes reviews, it ruled in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu that the United States Patent and Trademark Office wrongly implemented regulations allowing...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB denied a petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information directed to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Ooma, Inc. v. Deep Green Wireless LLC,...more
On September 9, 2017, an Eastern District of Texas magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation holding that a plaintiff was estopped from asserting its patent infringement claims because statements made in response to...more
Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), district courts have been finding no estoppel in court proceedings for invalidity positions that were...more
In orders entered July 10 and 12, 2017, the PTAB instituted further inter partes review (IPR) of six Allergan Inc. (“Allergan”) patents relating to cyclosporine compositions. Each of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,633,162, 8,685,930,...more
By rule, a petitioner may request permission from the Board to submit supplemental information in an IPR proceeding if: (1) the request is filed within one month of the Board’s institution decision, and (2) the supplemental...more
In a case that highlights the importance for petitioners to conduct a thorough prior art search and to anticipate patent owner’s arguments, the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. §...more
McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more
United State Postal Service v. Return Mail, Inc.; Conopco, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co. - Two recent orders by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) emphasize...more
Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has explained that an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner should fully support...more
Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC - In a combined decision of three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), the Board declined institution inter partes...more
In January 2013, Petitioner IBS filed a petition for IPR. Five months later, IBS filed a second petition for IPR on the same patent claims. The follow-on petition relied on art from the first petition and other prior art,...more