by John Marlott | May 23, 2019 | Trial Institution
By John Marlott – Section 112 indefiniteness issues—particularly in the context of means-plus-function claim limitations—can present difficult problems for IPR petitioners, and, sometimes, these § 112 problems can doom an IPR petition at the PTAB. The PTAB has...
by John Marlott | Mar 22, 2019 | Amendment Practice
By John Marlott We recently posted about the panel opinion in Amazon.com v. Uniloc, a final written decision demonstrating how the PTAB has given heightened scrutiny to proposed substitute amended claims in an IPR. In addition to assessing the patentability of...
by John Marlott | Feb 7, 2019 | Amendment Practice
By John Marlott An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims on other unpatentability...
by John Marlott | Dec 28, 2018 | Federal Circuit Appeal
By John Marlott – Estimates are that roughly 80% of IPRs involve a challenge to a patent being asserted against the petitioner in a district court litigation. Typically, in those IPRs, if the litigation-defendant-petitioner loses at the PTAB, there is no...
by John Marlott | Oct 18, 2018 | Final Written Decisions, Request for Reconsideration, Trial Institution
By T. Kaitlin Crowder, John Marlott, and Dave Cochran The PTAB may institute IPR proceedings only on the basis of certain prior art that is potentially invalidating under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute IPR on any other...
