by Matthew Johnson | Aug 17, 2018 | Estoppel, Federal Circuit
In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB’s treatment of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation as resetting the IPR...
by David Cochran | Jul 23, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit
By: David E. Anderson[1] and Dave Cochran On July 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s finding that claims 1-5 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,651,118 (“the ’118 Patent”) are anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,148,330 (“Gnaga”) and Japanese Application No....
by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | Jul 9, 2018 | Federal Circuit
By: Jen Chheda and John Kinton Following the logic set forth in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), the Federal Circuit granted Petitioner Adidas AG’s (“Adidas”) motion to remand IPR2016-00921 and IPR2016-00922 to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...
by David Maiorana | Jun 26, 2018 | Federal Circuit
By: Dave Maiorana When the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute regarding partial IPR institution, the PTAB estimated that there were several hundred pending IPRs in which the Board had instituted some, but not all, claims and/or grounds. Similarly, at...
by Geoffrey Gavin | Jun 24, 2018 | Federal Circuit
By: Geoffrey K. Gavin Last week, the Federal Circuit granted, in part, a panel rehearing request and remanded an IPR to the PTAB in view of SAS to address claims that were not initially instituted by the Board. Broad Ocean Tech., LLC v. Nidec Motor Corp., No....
by Marc S. Blackman | Jun 7, 2018 | Claim Construction, Federal Circuit, PTAB Trial Basics
By: Marc S. Blackman Whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is analyzed under different standards by District Courts and the PTAB. District Courts apply the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Nautilus requiring a patent’s claims, viewed in...
