In a rehearing decision issued by a Delegated Rehearing Panel specially convened by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board vacated a prior panel decision denying institution, modified...more
On Friday May 27, 2022, the Federal Circuit added another opinion to the Arthrex line of cases. As a short refresher, Arthrex was back at the Federal Circuit after being remanded to the Board for Director Review after Patent...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
The Federal Circuit reconfirmed its interpretation of the IPR joinder rules of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) after the panel’s rehearing in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400, 2020 WL 5267975 (Fed. Cir. Sept....more
January 17 Update: On January 17, each of the parties filed responses to the rehearing petitions - As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew...more
The Federal Circuit and the patent world continues to grapple with the court’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Since our last updates, the parties in Arthrex and other cases have continued the push for en banc...more
As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew has generated significant discussion and controversy in the patent world. On December 16, both parties...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew excited and disrupted the patent world... Inter partes review (IPR) reshaped patent law and patent litigation this decade after the America Invents Act took effect....more
For the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For an...more
Following up on a November 4th oral argument (accessible here) that focused on the Arthrex Appointments Clause issue, the Federal Circuit has requested additional briefing from Polaris, Kingston, and the U.S. regarding the...more
PTAB May Invalidate Claims on Reconsideration Based on Grounds Raised in the Institution Decision that Were Not Originally Instituted - In AC Technologies S.A., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., Appeal No....more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is poised to decide a case which may create new estoppel concerns for AIA petitioners under 35 USC § 315(e)(2). The appeal resulted from a Hatch-Waxman litigation in BTG v. Amneal,...more
Rule 36 is a single sentence affirmance. Yet to explain the impact of a Rule 36 decision on later filed cases, the Court needed to issue a 7-page precedential decision. In Virnetx v Apple the Court held Rule 36 creates...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018) In a reissued, slightly altered version of a July 3, 2018 decision,...more
Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., (Fed. Cir. No. 16-2321), expresses a growing discomfort with the Patent Office’s practice of joinder and expanded panels....more
On July 6, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Ford Motor Company’s (“Petitioner”) request for rehearing of the Board’s decision denying institution of multiple inter partes reviews (IPR)...more
On Friday, August 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR...more
In a rare grant of a petition for rehearing en banc, the court decided that an appeal “warrants en banc consideration” of who bears what burden when amending in an IPR. In re: Aqua Products, No. 15-1177, slip op. at 2 (Fed....more
Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition for rehearing en banc in the In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC case. As we have previously reported, this case was the first appeal of the first...more