by Matthew Johnson | Sep 27, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics
The PTAB has been very active in designating decisions precedential and informative in 2019. Here’s a recap of designations so far: Real parties in interest, 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2), 322(a)(2) Precedential – Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., Case...
by Matthew Johnson | Sep 19, 2019 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Mike Lavine and Matt Johnson On September 6, 2019, a PTAB panel including USPTO Director Andrei Iancu instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,279,259 (“the ‘259 Patent”). The ‘259 Patent is directed to a tile lippage removal system and is owned...
by Matthew Johnson | Sep 12, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Standing
By Geoffrey Gavin and Matt Johnson The PTAB designated as precedential a January 2019 panel decision relating to the bar on instituting an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) when the petitioner previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of the patent. See...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 27, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits
By Tom Ritchie and Matt Johnson The PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) has concluded that the one-year time bar for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered by the service of a complaint alleging infringement even if “the serving party lacks...
by Matthew Johnson | Jul 23, 2019 | Amendment Practice, Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics
By Catharina Chin Eng and Matt Johnson On July 15, 2019, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (TPG) (“2nd Update”), providing additional guidance for trial practice before the Board. The original...
by Matthew Johnson | Jun 5, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson Petitioners beware. The PTAB will not “play archaeologist with the record” or assume the burden of making arguments if the Petitioner fails to present the asserted reasons for invalidity with the required specificity. Amazon Web...
