Background

In 2018, Hunting Titan, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422 (“the ’422 patent”), which is owned by DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, a manufacturer of industrial explosives. In pertinent part, Hunting Titan asserted in its petition that claims 1-15 of the ’422 patent were unpatentable because they were

Late last year, the PTAB published its final round of statistics for 2021. From October 1, 2020 to November 30, 2021, 1629 petitions were filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The majority of petitions filed are for Inter Partes Review (IPR), with less than 10% of petitions filed for Post Grant Review

Last month, in the case In re: MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) dismissed an appeal by MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. (“MaxPower”) of four determinations to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) of four of MaxPower’s patents. The majority’s brief opinion states that a decision to institute an IPR

Earlier this month, in the precedential decision Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on the issue of estoppel (or lack thereof) when multiple parties file multiple, substantially similar petitions challenging a patent’s patentability.

1) The

In 2017, Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) filed two petitions requesting inter parties review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,083,997 (“the ’997 patent”), with the first petition directed to claims 1-19 and the second petition directed to claims 20-35. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) issued two substantially similar Final Written Decisions (IPR2017-00829, IPR2017-00830) that

On October 1, 2019, in Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Appeals 2018-1151, -1153 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) abused its discretion by requiring Honeywell Int’l Inc. (“Honeywell”) to show that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 255 were met before

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling today in Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), holding that the United States Government is not a “person” eligible to petition for covered-business-method (“CBM”) review, inter partes review (“IPR”), or post-grant review (“PGR”) America Invents Act (“AIA”) proceedings before the

Article III standing has become a contested and often dispositive issue in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  For example, as we reported previously, the Federal Circuit has dismissed an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s appeal where the petitioner-appellant lost standing by abandoning development of its potentially infringing product.[1]  We also

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