by Matthew Johnson | Aug 4, 2022 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News
By Ibrahim Ijaz,* Evan Jones, and Matt Johnson – On July 6, 2022, a panel of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) administrative patent judges granted institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue...
by Matthew Johnson | May 2, 2022 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News
By Haytham Soliman and Matt Johnson – The Board denied post grant review in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) after applying the Advanced Bionics[1] framework as informed by the factors outlined in Becton.[2] ...
by David Maiorana | Dec 23, 2020 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Dave Maiorana and Zach Sharb – On December 7, 2020, the PTAB granted Activ Financial Systems, Inc.’s (“Activ”) petition for inter partes review of claim 43 and 44 of IP Reservoir LLC’s (“IP Reservoir”) U.S. Patent No. 10,062,115 (the ’115 Patent), directed...
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 20, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
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). ...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 10, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News
By Robby Breetz and Matt Johnson – As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. Here is an in depth review of the informative decision. On March 24, 2020,the PTAB designated two sections of the...
by John Kinton | Apr 3, 2020 | 325(d) issues
By John Kinton and Amanda Leckman – As we noted here, the PTAB recently designated two 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) cases precedential and one informative. Here is an in depth review of the informative decision. On October 31, 2019, the PTAB denied PUMA North America,...
