The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated its decision in Cambridge v. Sfara (IPR2024-00952) as an informative decision.[1] This designation addresses an important issue in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings: inconsistent claim construction arguments between district court litigation and PTAB petitions.
Claim Construction Inconsistency
The PTAB’s holding centered on Petitioner’s proposed construction
On January 27, 2025, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) “has jurisdiction over IPRs concerning expired patents.” See Apple Inc. v. Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC, 2025 WL 299939, *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2025).
Background and Procedural History
Apple, the inter partes review (“IPR”) petitioner, filed an IPR
At the end of October, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued a final written decision in PGR2023-00023, finding all claims of a patent owned by Halliburton Energy Services unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Profrac Holding Corp and U.S. Well Services, LLC filed a petition for post grant review of all claims
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 October 26, 2021, Chief Administrative Patent Judge (“APJ”) Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) lifted a stay that he issued on May 1, 2020, pausing all activity in PTAB cases that were remanded to PTAB from the Federal Circuit under Arthrex.[1] Within the order lifting the stay,
This week, in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated and remanded a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”), holding that the administrative patent judges (“APJs”) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) are unconstitutionally appointed. While the CAFC came to the same conclusion
In Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No 19-civ-4297 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 19, 2021), the parties’ forum selection clause in their non-disclosure agreement did not prevent Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) from challenging Kannuu Pty, Ltd.’s (“Kannuu”) patent in an IPR proceeding. The court held IPR petitions did not fall within the scope
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published a decision on petition stating that an inventor must be a natural person, and denied Petitioner’s request to name an artificial intelligence entity as the inventor.
The inventor at issue is an artificial intelligence (AI) system named “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal Reserve Bank Of Atlanta, Case No. 19-1018 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) [hereinafter Bozeman], holding that Federal Reserve banks (hereinafter “the Banks”) are people under the AIA, capable of petitioning for post-issuance review. The Court further
In Customedia Techs., LLC v. DISH Network Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions holding that claims 1-6, 8, 17, and 23 of U.S. Pat. No. 8,719,090 (the “’090 Patent”) and claims 1-4, 6-7, 16-19, 23-24, 26-28, 32-36, and 41 of U.S. Pat. No. 9,053, 494