In Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus America, Inc., Olympus Medical Systems Corp., IPR2014-00233 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016) (Judges Moore, Schall, and O’Malley), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent 6,030,384 (“’384 patent”).  The Board’s decision was based on prior art under pre-AIA §102(a).  This

On Final Written Decision in Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., the PTAB determined the Petitioner had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent 5,921,489 were unpatentable.  The PTAB’s decision turned on the question of whether two cited references were “analogous to the claimed

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit considered the impact of Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) on the scope of appellate review of a PTAB decision to vacate an inter partes review institution decision and terminate the proceeding  and concluded there

In Husky Injection Molding v. Athena Automation, the Federal Circuit has again refused to review a decision underlying the Board’s institution decision, in this case, whether the Petitioner was barred from filing an inter partes review petition based on assignor estoppel.  As in Achates, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to conduct

The recent decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom, has presented an interesting opportunity for the Federal Circuit to reconsider its jurisprudence on the reviewability of the PTO’s institution decision post-Cuozzo and in particular the application of the time bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  The language of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)

Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay, Inc. presents an interesting situation emphasizing the limited scope of IPR proceedings and the interplay between PTAB practice and co-pending litigation.  In Activision Blizzard., the Petitioners challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,920,497, a patent directed to “a method of connecting a seeking computer through a portal computer to

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