With an unusual fact pattern, and a Federal Circuit opinion that touches on standing to appeal, joinder of parties, and agency obligations, Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., 964 F.3d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2020), seems closer to a law school teaching aid than an actual inter partes review (“IPR”) appeal. Without addressing the asserted grounds
USPTO Rulemaking for Post-Grant Proceedings Open for Public Comments
On May 27, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proposed amendments to its rules governing post-grant proceedings, addressing three topics. First, petitions for post-grant proceedings would require institution of all claims or denial of the petition. Second, patent owners would be permitted to file sur-replies to principal briefs. Third, the rules would eliminate
The § 315(b) Time-Bar and a New Real-Party-In-Interest
The Federal Circuit was recently asked to review the interplay of real-parties-in-interest and the inter partes review (“IPR”) time-bar. Acoustic Technology, Inc., Appellant v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2019-1059, 2019-1060 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020) (opinion available here). The facts raised an interesting question of how business mergers can affect IPR and
The Federal Circuit’s Determination That Administrative Patent Judges are Unconstitutionally Appointed
Recently, the Federal Circuit held that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) comprising the 3-member USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are unconstitutionally appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The court promptly remedied the violation and limited its effect on other PTAB decisions.
Continue Reading The Federal Circuit’s Determination That Administrative Patent Judges are Unconstitutionally Appointed
State Sovereign Immunity Does Not Apply in IPRs
A recent Federal Circuit opinion held that state sovereignty does not shield states from inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). Regents of the Univ. of Minn. V. LSI Corp., No. 2018-1559 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2019) (opinion available here). This decision is another strike against sovereign
Precedential Opinion Panel to Decide “Printed Publication” Requirements at Institution Stage
An upcoming Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) may offer improved clarity for petitioners and patent owners when a petitioner relies on non-patent literature in challenging a patent.
Background
Hulu, LLC sought inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 5,806,062 (“the ’062 patent”) asserting claims
First Precedential Opinion Panel Determines PTAB Has Discretion to Join Same Party and New Issues to Existing IPR
Last week, the first Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) entered a decision examining the scope of joinder available under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Case IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 (Mar. 13, 2019). The POP made two determinations about the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
IPR Petitioner “Lost” Standing to Appeal to Federal Circuit By Abandoning Development of Proposed Biosimilar Before Appeal Was Completed
On February 7, 2019, the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal because the IPR petitioner, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, essentially “lost” its constitutional standing when – prior to completing its appeal to the Federal Circuit – it abandoned development of its proposed biosimilar after failed Phase 1 clinical trials. Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No.
PTAB Prepares to Convene its First Precedential Opinion Panel to Address Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB” or “the Board”) is preparing for its first instance of the newly created Precedential Opinion Panel (POP). Proppant Express Invs., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2018-00914, Paper 24 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018). Interested parties may have had a busy holiday season, because initial briefing was due