Posts Tagged: inter partes review


Supreme Court asked to apply Multiple Proceeding rule to end harassing validity challenges

The Multiple Proceedings rule has become the essence of uncertainty. What exactly does it mean? §325(d) gives the PTO Director the authority to refuse a petition when “…
By Gene Quinn
4 hours ago 0

Comcast Invalidates Rovi Patents at PTAB that Previously Secured Limited Exclusion Order at ITC

Perhaps Rovi will take the opportunity to test the waters with the newly created Precedential Opinion Panel (POP), which is intended to bring uniformity between examination procedures …

Service Starts § 315(b) Time-Bar Even If Complaint Involuntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice

In Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co. the Federal Circuit ruled the time-bar for filing a petition for inter partes review in Section 315(b) …

Is the Presumption of Validity Dead in Substitute Claims Issued as a Result of Motions to Amend After PTAB Proceedings?

Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal confirmed that the burden of persuasion on a the patentability of amended claims in a …

IPR Outcomes of Orange Book Patents and its Effect on Hatch-Waxman Litigation

Out of the 230 Orange Book patents challenged in IPR proceedings, 90.4% (208) of these patents were also challenged in Hatch-Waxman litigation perhaps due to the lucrative 180-day exclusivity incentive …
By Tulip Mahaseth
18 days ago 3

Capella Photonics Challenges Federal Circuit Practice of Judgments Without Opinions

Capella Photonics, Inc. has filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the Federal Circuit’s practice of issuing judgments without opinion pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36 in …

Can the Federal Circuit Refuse an Appeal by a Non-defendant Petitioner in an IPR?

JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd., No. 2017-1828 (Fed. Cir. 2018) raises the important question of whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can refuse to …

CAFC Reverses Nonobviousness Ruling in IPR as Board Failed to Apply Burden-Shifting Standard

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) inter partes review decision on nonobviousness, holding that the Board erred when it did not …

PTAB Upholds Kamatani Cloud Patent Challenged by Unified Patents

Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) entered a final written decision terminating an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding that had challenged a patent owned …
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
23 days ago 1

Patent Office Updates the Trial Practice Guide

The Patent Office has begun a planned series of updates to the Practice Guide, with the first such update having been released in August 2018. The August 2018 Practice …

Are all U.S. Patent Claims Invalid?

Nobel Biocare Srvcs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc. makes one wonder whether all U.S. patents are invalid, or will eventually become invalid. This case demonstrates that …
By Gene Quinn
27 days ago 28

IPR Petitioner Bears Burden of Demonstrating Real Parties in Interest are Listed and Petitions are Not Time-Barred

Though the Board did not specify which party bore the burden of demonstrating that all real parties in interest were identified in the petition, it appeared to …

Some Rovi Patent Claims Survive IPR After PTAB Issues Final Decision in Comcast Challenge

On Monday, September 10th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding petitioned by telecommunications conglomerate Comcast …
By Steve Brachmann
1 month ago 2

PPAC Fee Hearing Discusses Proposed Increases to Late Payments, AIA Trial Fees

Lisa Jorgenson, executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), asked the agency to better justify the increased surcharge for late maintenance fee payments as …
By Steve Brachmann
1 month ago 5

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision for Failure to Consider Ericsson Reply Brief

In its decision, the Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB is entitled to strike arguments improperly raised in a reply brief under 37 CFR § 42.23(b). However, the appellate …
By Steve Brachmann
2 months ago 0

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close