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
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 government is currently in a partial shutdown due to a lapse in appropriated funding for a portion of the federal government. The partial shutdown began on December 22, 2018, and is currently in its fifth week. Two government organizations affected by the shutdown are (i) the Department of Commerce, which includes the
In its recent decision Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, No. 17-1135 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court’s ruling on Google’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings that all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
On October 5, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review proceeding filed by Neptune Generics, LLC (“Neptune”) challenging the patentability of the claims in Eli Lilly & Co.’s Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 patent”). The Board held that Neptune failed to establish that claims
Under a new rule set to take effect on December 7, 2017, communications between patent practitioners authorized to practice patent matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under 37 C.F.R.