686 articles · page 16 of 58
MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC Before Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Fee-funded structure of AIA review proceedings does not violate due process. After inter partes review (“IPR”),…
KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Before Newman, Prost, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: The forum selection clause in the parties' non-disclosure agreement only…
Last month we released our fifth annual IPR Intelligence Report. This popular IP report evaluates all stakeholders in Inter-Partes Review (IPR) proceedings each year. The report ranks IPR firms, attorneys, petitioners, patent owners and judges under…
Patents have been often considered as safeguards for your inventions, as long as they fall under the “patentable” category and meet the novelty, non-obvious, and utility requirements. Partnering with the best law firm while minimizing the costs…
VALVE CORPORATION v. IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD . Before Newman, Lourie, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: For purposes of authenticating a prior art reference in IPR proceedings, the Board had an obligation to compare the…
Unpacking the Importance of the Claimed Invention from Other Commercial Components Objective indicia of non-obviousness, such as commercial success and industry praise, can be probative evidence of non-obviousness. In order for the objective evidence of…
What is “Materially Identical?” The doctrine of issue preclusion can prevent an issue previously litigated at the PTAB from being re-litigated in a later proceeding, such as in the district court. In order for issue preclusion to apply, a…
Arthrex Information Updated The USPTO requested feedback on the interim Director review process and, in response to that feedback, has updated the Arthrex Q&As . In response to questions from the public, the current update revises several existing Q&As and…
Pursuing Different Constructions Before the PTAB & Court? Since the PTAB started applying the Philips standard for claim construction, petitioners have put a lot more thought into their proposed claim constructions. This is because it is no longer possible…
Are Two Heads Better than One? When faced with parallel PTAB and District Court/ITC proceedings, both patent owners and petitioners alike must decide whether to use the same expert in each proceeding, or hire a dedicated expert for each. Certainly there is…
NEW VISION GAMING & DEVELOPMENT, INC. V. SG GAMING, INC. Before Newman, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two CBM decisions under Arthrex without resolving other issues…
Previous Testimony May Highlight Infringement When a failed PTAB petitioner heads back to court, Patent Owners sometimes seek to leverage the broad claim reads proposed at the PTAB to demonstrate infringement. Recently, in ChanBond, LLC v. Atlantic…
