by Matthew Johnson | Apr 22, 2025 | Time Limits, Trial Institution
By Dalton Earich and Matt Johnson – In 2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v. The Ridge Wallet LLC, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied inter partes review (“IPR”) institution where the petition was time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)...
by David Maiorana | Jan 31, 2025 | Joinder, PTAB News, Time Limits, Trial Institution
By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On June 6, 2024, Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. (“Waydoo”) filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 (“the ’044 Patent”) (“IPR998”), assigned to MHL Custom, Inc. (“MHL”). ...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 22, 2024 | Preliminary Responses, PTAB News, Time Limits
By Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson – In a sua sponte Director Review, USPTO Director Vidal vacated an adverse judgement against Patent Owner for Patent Owner’s failure to submit a mandatory notice of information or file a preliminary response to a Petition within...
by Matthew Johnson | Jul 10, 2024 | Joinder, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits, Trial Institution
By Ariana Tsanas*, Matt Johnson, and Daniel Sloan – On May 6th, 2024, the PTAB declined Ubiquiti Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request to institute inter partes review. Ubiquiti Inc. v. XR Communications LLC D/B/A Vivato Tech., IPR2024-00148, Paper 12 (May 6, 2024). ...
by Matthew Johnson | Nov 3, 2023 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits
By Tova Werblowsky* and Matt Johnson – The PTAB recently granted institution of inter partes review despite the Patent Owner not receiving the petition for the proceeding until three business days after the statutory deadline. See Kahoot! ASA and Kahoot Edu,...
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 4, 2023 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits
By Tova Werblowsky* and Matt Johnson – Institution of an IPR is automatically barred if the “petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner…is served with the complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35...
