Posts Tagged: "IPR"

Patent Filings Roundup: Second Mystery Entity Challenges $2.2 Billion VLSI/Fortress Patents; IP Edge Files Almost 50 New Complaints; NPE K.Mizra Targets ISPs

It was a busy week for patent filings in the district courts, with 113 complaints filed, fueled particularly by nearly 50 (!) IP Edge complaints, primarily filed in the Western District of Texas’s Waco Division; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on the other hand, was slightly down, with 29—the bulk coming from Intel counterpunching with seven challenges against AQUIS-asserted patents. 

USPTO Provides Guidance on Director Review Process Under Arthrex

This week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would be implementing an interim rule at the agency in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s late June decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Today, the Office held a Boardside Chat with Drew Hirshfeld, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO; Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge; Jacqueline W. Bonilla, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge; and Scott C. Weidenfeller, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge to explain how the interim process will work and answer questions submitted by the public. Janet Gongola, Vice Chief Judge for Engagement at the PTAB, moderated the panel.

Patent Filings Roundup: Ice Castle Patent Asserted Against Competitors; Open-Source Chip Declaratory Judgment Action

It was a pretty normal week patent filings-wise, with 65 district court complaints and 38 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions filed, all inter partes reviews (IPRs). “Frozen Assets Asserted”: I’ve heard of castles built on sand and castles built in the sky, but this patent is about those built of ice—and the apparent cutthroat nature of the niche but seemingly quite profitable business. Ice Castles, LLC, according to them, is a Utah-based “awe-inspiring, must-see winter phenomenon built with hundreds of thousands of icicles that brings fairy tales to life.” Per them, founder Brent Christensen began experimenting with ice buildings as a hobby in the winter of 2009, and the following year, made one for a local resort; he patented his method of making these ice structures, which was granted in 2013. His business flourished, as he started both making ice castles, selling tickets, and leasing and managing other destination locations in other states, including New Hampshire. Well, this week they sued Harbor Enterprises Marketing & Productions, Lester Spear, and Cameron Clan Snack Co. LCC on U.S. Patent 8,511,042, claiming the Maine-based company had constructed an infringing ice castle in Maine in 2021, and charged an admission fee, including multiple photos of the Maine location in their complaint.

Arthrex Aftermath: How the Landmark Supreme Court Decision Drives the PTAB’s Future

A working definition of inertia is the tendency of a body to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. As it did in Oil States (S.C. 2018), inertia appears to have played a role in the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States v. Arthrex, in which the central dispute was the remedy to address the unconstitutional appointment of administrative patent judges (APJs). Possible remedies included vacating hundreds or thousands of prior final decisions by unconstitutionally appointed APJs, requiring all APJs to be confirmed by the Senate and then rehear previously-decided reviews, finding the entire statutory structure unconstitutional and handing invalidity/unpatentability determinations back to Article III Courts, removing employment protections for APJs (as the Federal Circuit did), or adding a layer of review so that inferior officers had appropriate responsibility under the Appointments Clause. Faced with these possibilities, the Supreme Court’s holding maintains the inertia of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and again solidifies its role in patent litigation today.

In Arthrex Ruling, SCOTUS Says Director Review of Decisions, Not Power to Remove APJs, is What Matters

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, taking a different approach to curing the statute than did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in 2019, and ultimately vacating and remanding the case back to the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While the CAFC held that the statute could be severed and rendered constitutional by making Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) removeable at will, the Supreme Court said that remedy was not sufficient. The Court said: “[R]egardless whether the Government is correct that at-will removal by the Secretary would cure the constitutional problem, review by the Director better reflects the structure of supervision within the PTO and the nature of APJs’ duties.”