PTAB Requests Comments Regarding Discretionary Institution Issues
By Matt Johnson The Supreme Court has held the PTAB’s “decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016). Since the...
Invalidity Counter Against Unasserted Claim Does Not Implicate §315(a)
By Dave Maiorana - It is well-established that a counterclaim for invalidity in a district court litigation does not trigger the 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) bar. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(3). See also our previous posts here and here discussing strategies for declaratory...
BREAKING: Arthrex Headed to the Supreme Court
By Matt Johnson - On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the three appeals from the Federal Circuit's Arthrex decision, consolidating those three cases for briefing and argument. The questions to be presented are as follows: 1. Whether, for purposes of...
Federal Circuit’s Applications in Internet Time Decision Applied
By Matt Johnson - Throughout the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) history, patent owners have tried to leverage a petitioner’s alleged failure to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) as a way to achieve denial of an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition...
PTAB Reconsiders Unappealable § 315(b) Issue On Remand
By Matt Johnson - Current PTAB-relevant case law dictates: 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the...