686 articles · page 46 of 58
Written by Clayton R. Henson and Kerry S. Taylor, Ph.D. On July 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding all claims unpatentable in an IPR after the Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the PTAB’s previous final written decision. On…
Article III Standing Only Necessary for Party Invoking Authority of Federal Courts Last week, I analyzed the government's arguments supporting Article III standing for intervenors in Knowles Electronics v. Matal. In that case, the panel questioned…
In Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corp., [2016-1511] (August 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that Whirlpool’s U.S. Patent No. 7,581,688 relating to a household blender was not anticipated by U.S. Patent…
Assignor Estoppel Not an Exception to 311(a) The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has designated the following decision as precedential: Athena Automation Ltd v. Husky Injection Molding System Ltd., IPR2013-00290, Paper 18 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2013), Section…
Written by Damien Howard and Nathanael Luman, Ph.D. The PTAB recently designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in IPR proceedings in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems…
USPTO Explains Intervenor Standing Some weeks back in Knowles Electronics v. Matal, the Federal Circuit, sua sponte, asked the following of the parties (order here ): When the prevailing party in an inter partes reexamination proceeding before the…
Written by Robert J. Hilton, Ph.D. and Christopher M. DiLeo Introduction On July 18, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted a covered business method (“CBM”) patent…
Written by Mark E. Davis and Benjamin Anger On remand from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB granted Veritas’s Supplemental Motion to Amend for one substitute claim and denied the motion with respect to a second claim in Veeam Software Corporation v.…
Written by Peter Law and Kerry Taylor, Ph.D. The PTAB has again addressed sovereign immunity in the context of an IPR. Reactive Surfaces, LTD. petitioned for IPR of U.S. Patents No. 8,394,618 and 8,252,571. The ’618 and ’571 patents are…
Failure to Argue Differing Claim Language of Similar Claims Haunts Appellant PTAB practitioners must always be mindful of the Board's longstanding practice to treat grouped claims as standing or falling together. That is, claims should be argued…
Written by Scott Siera, Ph.D. and Michael L. Fuller Stanford University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong . Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2015-2011. Decided June 27, 2017. In an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Federal Circuit…
Previous posts (e.g., here , here and here ) discussed the patent enforcement activity of Celgard , a North Carolina company that manufactures specialty membranes and separators for lithium ion batteries. In these lawsuits, Celgard has asserted U.S. Patent…
