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
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
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
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated patent owner Qualcomm’s rights under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by not giving it notice and a chance to...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] 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...more
The Supreme Court recently denied Chrimar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar)’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s “Fresenius/Simmons preclusion principle,” under which Chrimar’s district court victory...more
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an Order in Emerson Elec Emerson Electric Co., Petitioner v. SIPCO, LLC, Case 19-966, stating “Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light...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
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
On October 31, 2019, a Federal Circuit panel issued Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., holding that administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were unconstitutionally-appointed...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
Last week, the Federal Circuit granted, in part, a panel rehearing request and remanded an IPR to the PTAB in view of SAS to address claims that were not initially instituted by the Board. Broad Ocean Tech., LLC v. Nidec...more