Posts Tagged: PTAB
CAFC Vacates PTAB Decision to Uphold Conversant Wireless Patent Challenged by Google, LG
On Tuesday, November 20th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Google LLC v. Conversant Wireless Licensing, which vacated a decision …
PTAB Institutes IPR, Finds Unified Patents is Sole Real Party in Interest
On Tuesday, November 27th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a redacted version of a decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding petitioned …
Nasdaq ISE Files Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson at PTAB Over Prior Representation
Nasdaq ISE’s motion to disqualify Fish & Richardson was made pursuant to 37 CFR 11.109, which prevents a practitioner from representing a party adverse to a former client in …
To Shift or Not to Shift: Burden Shifting Framework and the PTAB
Earlier this year, in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Dupont v. Synvina”), the Federal Circuit found that the Patent …
Supreme Court Refuses to Take SSL Services v. Cisco, Will Not Answer Question on Multiple Proceedings Rule at PTAB
In its petition for writ, SSL Services argued that the PTAB’s decision to institute the IPR incorrectly denied the application of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the …
CAFC: Patent Claim Directed to Concrete Assignment of Specified Functions is Patent Eligible
The Federal Circuit recently reversed the Western District of Washington’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where the district court held …
Federal Circuit Holds a ‘Similar Enough’ Claim Construction Doesn’t Violate the APA
In Hamilton Beach Brands v. F’Real Foods, the Federal Circuit found that under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s adopted claim …
The PTAB Promotes Petitioner Promiscuity
Why in the world would the federal government want to be an active participant in invalidating patents that the USPTO grants? Does the federal government believe that …
Federal Circuit affirms PTAB Mixed Decision in Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard
Acceleration Bay appealed the final written decisions of the Board holding claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634, claims 1-11 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,701,344, …
Federal Circuit says Assignor Estoppel Has “No Place” in IPR Proceedings
The Federal Circuit recently found that assignor estoppel has “no place in IPR proceedings,” affirming a holding of the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (“Board”) that assignor …
Iancu: Major PTAB Initiatives Rolled Out, Time to Assess Changes and Stakeholder Reaction
Director Iancu did not make much, if any, news speaking at PPAC today. He did, however, indicate that at least for now his major initiatives to reform …
A Patent Dream Come True
The US Patent Office – of which the PTAB is a part – issues patents. That’s why it exists. So if the PTAB finds an error in a …
Supreme Court to Determine if Federal Government Is a ‘Person’ Eligible to Petition the PTAB
The case will ask the highest court in the nation to determine whether the federal government is a person who may petition the Patent Trial and Appeal …
The USPTO Must End Repeated and Concerted Patent Attacks
Why is it that innovators such as Universities and independent inventors are caricatured as patent trolls while entities such as Unified Patents and RPX, who exist for …
What are the Priority Date, Patent Term, and Effective Filing Date of a Patent: The Roles of Specific Reference, Incorporation by Reference, and Claim Support
A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates that for priority claims and patent term, the phrase “specific reference” is key. For example, amongst three related applications, to get …
