by Matthew Johnson | Sep 1, 2020 | Trial Institution
By Alex Li and Matt Johnson The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has the discretion to deny institution of any inter partes review (IPR). Such discretionary denial may be based on a variety of considerations, such as the existence of an ongoing district court...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 26, 2020 | Claim Construction, Trial Institution
By Marlee Hartenstein and Matt Johnson – In Samsung Elecs Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cellect, LLC, IPR2020-00474, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020), the PTAB denied institution of U.S. Patent No. 6,982,740 (“the ʼ740 patent”), finding that the specification did not...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 5, 2020 | Trial Institution
In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality when a patent owner raises an...
by Matthew Johnson | Jul 24, 2020 | Trial Institution
By Jen Bachorik and Matt Johnson – In Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550 (PTAB March 17, 2020) (Paper 8), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, exercising its discretion to deny “follow-on petitions” challenging...
by David Cochran | Jul 21, 2020 | Trial Institution
By Dave Cochran – In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality when a...
by Matthew Johnson | Jul 10, 2020 | Trial Institution
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Recently, we reported about the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the AIA’s “no appeal” provision in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) means that the PTAB’s decision not to institute IPR because a petition is time barred under 35 U.S.C....
