The Federal Circuit reconfirmed its interpretation of the IPR joinder rules of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) after the panel’s rehearing in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400, 2020 WL 5267975 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2020). Appellant Facebook, Inc. had filed a combined request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The
Since Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) was decided three and a half months ago, the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded four cases to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB” or “Board”) for proceedings consistent with the decision.[1] In two of the decisions
In BioDelivery Sciences International v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a rehearing en banc after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) interpreted its remand order to “implement the [Supreme] Court’s decision in [SAS Institute v. Iancu]”[1] by modifying its institution decision, denying
On October 22, 2019, the USPTO published a Federal Register notice proposing changes to the rules of practice for inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), and covered business method patents (“CBM”) (collectively “post-grant trial”) proceedings regarding burdens of persuasion for motions to amend and the patentability of substitute claims.[1]
Specifically, the Federal Register
On August 16, 2018, the en banc Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) unambiguously triggers the one-year time bar to file an inter partes review (IPR) petition after a complaint is served, regardless of what may follow. In its decision, Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 3893119 (Fed.
In Wi-Fi One, the Federal Circuit held en banc that time-bar determinations by the PTAB under § 315(b) are appealable and remanded the associated IPRs for further proceedings pertaining to the time-bar issue.
Appeals from IPR decisions of the PTAB are limited in scope by § 314(d), which states that “the determination by the
On November 21, 2017, the PTAB issued guidance on motions to amend in view of the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).[i] The decision, a compilation of five separate opinions totaling 148 pages, left much to be analyzed and digested. However, as
On May 11, 2017, the Federal Circuit denied a request for an initial hearing en banc in Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson Am., Inc., Nos. 2017-1517, 2017-1518 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017). Although the denial was not surprising, the level of interest from the Court was. With multiple amicus briefs, two dissenting opinions, and