On December 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued another decision addressing an appellant’s standing to appeal inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the PTAB. The patent community has seen several opinions over the last couple of years as the Federal Circuit continues to navigate the complicated waters of what is and is not sufficient to
On June 18, 2020, the Federal Circuit granted JHO Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC’s (“JHO”) motion to vacate the PTAB’s final written decision and remand the case in light of the court’s decision in Arthrex. In an ex parte reexamination proceeding, the PTAB denied JHO’s request for rehearing of its decision affirming the Examiner’s rejections
The Halloween 2019 decision, Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew,[1] created a new right to rehearing in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), and has sent ripples through the judiciary and legislative branches that will continue to be felt for the foreseeable future. In the case, the Federal Circuit opinion announced that the
Recently, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the retroactive application of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings to pre-AIA issued patents is not a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Celgene appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decision
Recently, in AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., the Federal Circuit dismissed AVX Corp.’s (“AVX”) appeal of the PTAB’s inter partes review decision for lack of standing. AVX petitioned the PTAB for an inter partes review of the 21 claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,661,639 (“the ’639 patent”). Presidio Components Inc. (“Presidio”) owns the
On January 24, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., Case IPR2018-01310 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 7). The PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution despite finding that Deeper demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in prevailing as to two of the twenty-three claims
The PTAB has broad discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Several are aware that the PTAB commonly exercises its discretion to deny “follow-on” petitions that seek to challenge the validity of a patent that has
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rarely grants motions for additional discovery filed by a party in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding. Typically, a party’s motion will be denied for failing to satisfy the burden under the established factors. The PTAB has also denied motions for additional discovery where the party failed to
On January 24, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), finding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) allows the PTAB to enter an adverse judgment prior to an institution decision when the patent owner disclaims all of the challenged claims. In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
The Supreme Court recently held oral argument in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Before what appears to be a divided Court, the parties addressed pointed questioning over whether the inter partes review (“IPR”) process is constitutional. The justices’ questions and comments touched on a wide-range of issues including patentee