Praxair filed a first petition for inter partes review of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 8,846,112.  The PTAB instituted review based on the first petition and concluded that all claims, except claim 9, were unpatentable.  In doing so, the PTAB determined that the “providing information” step in claim 1, and “similarly-worded claims steps in other

The question of whether PTAB trials are litigation-like or examination-like (or some hybrid of the two) has been implicated on several occasions.  The most recent one is in the In re Aqua en banc hearing Order.  No. 2015-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2012).  While the PTAB has repeatedly stated it does not examine proposed amended

Cases remanded to the PTAB by the Federal Circuit are beginning to resurface.[1]   The PTAB decided two such cases this month.   See  Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Nos. 2015-1513, -1514 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2016), on remand, IPR2013-00440, Paper 49 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2016) and Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) requires the Federal Circuit to review the USPTO’s fact-findings under an Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) standard rather than for clear error, the standard it previously applied to such fact-findings.  Id. at 154-65.  The Federal Circuit later determined that the correct APA standard was the “substantial evidence”

On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed v.Lee, in part, to decide whether the PTAB should be applying the broadest reasonable interpretation when construing claims in AIA review proceedings rather than the claim construction applied in district court litigation.  One of the questions the Court will address is:  “Whether