by Matthew Johnson | May 16, 2024 | Claim Construction, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics
By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson – The Board declined to institute inter partes review because Petitioner failed to identify adequate corresponding structure in the challenged patent that performed the function of claim limitation that was to be construed...
by Matthew Johnson | May 2, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Matthew Johnson, Carl Kukkonen, Evan C. Jones, and Daniel Sloan – On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues. The Notice addresses stakeholder...
by Sarah Geers | May 1, 2024 | PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Sarah Geers and Daniel Sloan – Director Vidal recently vacated three discretionary denials of institution after finding that the three petitioners did not have a “significant relationship” with a prior petitioner. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Neo...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 26, 2024 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Request for Reconsideration
By: Lisa Furby, Marlee Hartenstein, Stephanie M. Mishaga and Robby Breetz – In 2021, following the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, the PTO issued an interim procedure for requesting Director Review (discussed here). The PTO has now issued a Notice of Proposed...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 25, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics
By Jack Graves and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently denied Trend Micro, Inc.’s (Petitioner) inter partes review petition against Open Text, Inc. and Webroot, Inc. (Patent Owners) challenging all claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,201,243. Trend Micro, Inc. v. Open Text,...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 19, 2024 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics
By Phil Shelton, Sue Gerber, and Matt Johnson – In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision in holding that certain claims of the Virtek patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,052,734) were unpatentable as...
