by David Maiorana | Dec 23, 2020 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Dave Maiorana and Zach Sharb – On December 7, 2020, the PTAB granted Activ Financial Systems, Inc.’s (“Activ”) petition for inter partes review of claim 43 and 44 of IP Reservoir LLC’s (“IP Reservoir”) U.S. Patent No. 10,062,115 (the ’115 Patent), directed...
by Matthew Johnson | Dec 18, 2020 | PTAB News, Trial Institution
On December 17th, the PTAB designated two decisions applying the Fintiv factors as precedential. We will break these cases down in detail in the coming days on the PTAB Litigation Blog. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corporation, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1,...
by Albert Liou | Dec 10, 2020 | CBMs, Trial Institution
By Albert Liou and Alison Ibendahl – A November 17, 2020 decision by the Federal Circuit has extended the Supreme Court’s April 2020 decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), which held that institution decisions...
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 20, 2020 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Matt Johnson – The Supreme Court has held the PTAB’s “decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion,” and that there is “no mandate to institute review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016). ...
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...
