by Carl Kukkonen | May 10, 2023 | PGR, Trial Institution
By Carl Kukkonen – In DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH et al v. QinetiQ Limited (PGR2023-00003), the petitioner filed its petition on the last possible day in the 9-month statutory period to timely file a petition for post-grant review (PGR). The certificate of...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 5, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PGR, Trial Institution
By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson – USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of a post-grant review and remanded the case for further proceedings. The petitioner challenged claims 1–27 of the ’274 patent under 35 U.S.C....
by Matthew Johnson | Mar 27, 2023 | PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Anthony Bautista and Matt Johnson – In Apple, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal, the Federal Circuit ruled that Apple and the other plaintiffs could continue their suit on a lone surviving challenge to the PTAB Director’s rulemaking procedures regarding...
by Matthew Johnson | Mar 17, 2023 | PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Hannah Mehrle and Matt Johnson – In IPR2022-01242, Director Vidal clarified that her prior guidance, which allows the Board to institute inter partes review even if the Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial first requires the Board to find that Fintiv...
by Josh Nightingale | Feb 28, 2023 | Petitions, PGR, Trial Institution
By Ashvi Patel and Josh Nightingale – Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) recently faced the issue of determining whether U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ‘823 patent”) is a pre- or post-AIA patent. Hedging its bets, Samsung concurrently filed two petitions—one...
by David Maiorana | Feb 6, 2023 | Joinder, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On September 1, 2022, CommScope, Inc. (“CommScope”) filed a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 8–10, 15, 24–26, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,462,835 (“the ’835 Patent”) in IPR2022-01443 (“the ’443 IPR”). The...
