by Carl Kukkonen | Aug 16, 2021 | Discovery, Motions Practice, PTAB News, Real Party in Interest
By Carl Kukkonen – In Unified Patents, LLC f/k/a Unified Patents Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (IPR2021-00827), the PTAB denied a patent owner’s request to file a motion for additional discovery into any real...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 3, 2021 | PTAB News
By Matt Johnson – On July 6th and 7th, the USPTO made good on its promise to not wait for a confirmed director to begin Arthrex Director reviews, issuing its first denials of review requests. The full press release is below: USPTO issues first Director...
by Josh Nightingale | Aug 2, 2021 | PTAB News
By Zach Sharb and Josh Nightingale – On May 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied both defendant Valve Corporation’s (“Valve”) motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and plaintiff Ironburg...
by Joseph Beauchamp | Jul 22, 2021 | Petitions, PTAB News
By Alison Ibendahl and Joseph Beauchamp – A June 25, 2021 decision by the PTAB has clarified that when paying the filing fee via wire transfer, the inter partes review (“IPR”) petition filing date is based upon when the funds are made available to the USPTO. ...
by Matthew Johnson | Jul 21, 2021 | PTAB News
By Matt Johnson – On July 20th, the PTAB provided additional clarifications regarding its views on Arthrex and how its interim procedures for requesting Director review will work for cases receiving Final Written Decisions on a going forward basis (i.e., not...
by Matthew Johnson | Jul 21, 2021 | PTAB News
The United States Supreme Court has delivered its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, which determined whether appointments of administrative patent judges to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were constitutional. Jones Day’s Matt...
