Posts Tagged: "PTAB"

Here we go again! We’ve heard the story in the past, which is sadly all too common. A patent owner prevails in federal district court, and also prevails at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) challenge, but somehow finds themselves still fighting an ex parte reexamination. How is this possible? Perhaps something will be done—this time—because the abusive, harassing challenger is Chinese company TikTok, who is seeking to invalidate the very same claims it failed to invalidate in an IPR that was denied institution on the merits.

It was a typical week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with 25 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs). Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed.Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed. At the PTAB, Hyundai filed two new IPRs against Mel Navip LLC [associated with Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC] patents; Fortinet Inc. filed two IPRs against one Lionra Technologies [associated with Magnetar Capital] patent; and Apple filed two IPRs against DoDots Licensing Solutions [Strategic Intellectual Solutions] patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not lose its statutory authority to issue a Final Written Decision when it misses the 1.5-year deadline to do so, as established by the patent statute. According to the opinion, which was authored by Judge Dyk, “[t]his appears to be the only proceeding in which the Board has failed to meet the statutory deadline, and this is accordingly a matter of first impression.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Medtronic failed to prove the challenged claims of Teleflex’s catheter patent unpatentable. In several previous precedential decisions issued this year, the CAFC similarly upheld the PTAB’s determinations. In May, the court said that Medtronic failed to show the challenged claims of five catheter patents unpatentable because the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. Judge Dyk dissented. And in June, the court found in two separate rulings issued the same day that Teleflex’s objective evidence supported a presumption of nexus, that Medtronic copied Teleflex’s product and that Teleflex’s substitute claims did not lack adequate written description.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today designated as precedential a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from March of this year that held a precedential U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruling on prior art determinations for provisional applications applies only to pre-America Invents Act (AIA) patents.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded last week to a petition for certiorari that is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that said appellate review of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) discretionary denial rules for inter partes review (IPR) are “arbitrary and capricious” is precluded by Section 314(d) of the patent statute.

It was a typical week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in district courts, with 25 new PTAB petitions (five post grant review and 20 inter partes review) and 53 new district court complaints filed. At the PTAB, there were three procedural denials under Section 325(d) (and denying patent owner’s request to deny under Fintiv) in IPRs filed by Nokia Corp. against optical networking patents owned by Alexander Soto and Walter Soto and asserted by inventor owned-NextGen Innovations, LLC.

The Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing today featuring witnesses who weighed in on the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which was introduced in June by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI). Today’s was the sixth hearing of the IP Subcommittee this year. The goal of the PREVAIL Act is to reform the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a number of ways.

On November 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, dismissing Allgenesis’ appeal after an unsuccessful challenge to Cloudbreak’s patent claims at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Federal Circuit ruled that Allgenesis lacked Article III standing to bring the appeal for failing to establish an injury in fact stemming from potential infringement liability or the impact of the PTAB’s priority determinations on the scope of Allgenesis’ patent rights.

It was another slow week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and a typical week in district courts, with 52 district court complaints filed and 22 new PTAB petitions. There was a new discretionary denial, a bunch of litigation-provoked high-profile PTAB challenges, and some notable new litigations. There was another Fintiv discretionary denial this week: here, a Chinese patent owner, Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., benefited from the Board’s discretionary denial rules in a petition brought by another Chinese battery company. The case, IPR2023-00585, leaves unaddressed the questions raised about the validity of U.S. Patent 11329352.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued an Order last week in a sua sponte Director Review proceeding asking the parties to Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC and any interested amici to weigh in on the appropriate sanctions remedy when a party withholds evidence in an America Invents Act (AIA) proceeding.

On October 26, a panel majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a pair of final written decisions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating patent claims owned by Monterey Research and covering improved static random access memory (SRAM) cell designs. Dissenting from the majority was Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk, who believed that both the Board and CAFC panel majority erred by concluding that claim amendments made during reexamination did not differentiate the claims from asserted prior art references.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential ruling finding that it is ultimately the petitioner’s burden to clearly present arguments in an inter partes review (IPR), and that Netflix failed to do so in challenging the relevant claims of DivX’s streaming technology patents. Judge Dyk dissented from the majority.  

It was a slow week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with just 18 new petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs); in district court, a slightly below average 54 new patent filings and 48 terminations rounded out the count. District courts saw continued filings in several large campaigns. Unwired Global Systems LLC (associated with high volume plaintiff, Jeffrey Gross) adds another seven defendants to its campaign, asserting a single patent related to home area network middleware interfaces and inventor-controlled Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC filed suit against six defendants asserting patents related to, not surprisingly, digital imaging, bringing the total number of defendants to seven.

Inter partes review (IPR) is a legal process conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to assess patentability based on anticipation or obviousness using prior art publications and patents. Congress established IPR to offer an efficient alternative to litigating patent disputes before the district courts. This article discusses some practice tips for both challenging and defending patents in IPRs before the PTAB.