by Matthew Johnson | May 30, 2019 | Trial Institution
By Matthew Chung*, Jasper L. Tran, and Matt Johnson Our previous blog post on NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), noted the PTAB’s exercise of its § 314(a) discretion to deny IPR institution,...
by John Marlott | May 23, 2019 | Trial Institution
By John Marlott – Section 112 indefiniteness issues—particularly in the context of means-plus-function claim limitations—can present difficult problems for IPR petitioners, and, sometimes, these § 112 problems can doom an IPR petition at the PTAB. The PTAB has...
by Carl Kukkonen | May 16, 2019 | Time Limits, Trial Institution
By Carl Kukkonen and Amanda Leckman The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) will consider, at the behest of 360Heros, whether a complaint alleging patent infringement made by a party other than the patent owner of the patent triggers the § 315(b) time bar. 35...
by Matthew Johnson | May 16, 2019 | Trial Institution
By Alex Li and Matt Johnson On April 2, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential decision that denied three petitions filed by Petitioner Valve Corporation (“Valve”) to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,235,934 (“the ’934 patent”)...
by Gasper LaRosa | May 13, 2019 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Gasper LaRosa When exercising its broad discretion on whether to institute review, the PTAB is not limited to consideration of factors associated with the type of denial it ultimately issues. In a recent decision that the PTAB designated as precedential, the PTAB...
by Matthew Johnson | May 9, 2019 | Trial Institution
By Alex Li and Matt Johnson On April 22, 2019, the PTAB issued an order that the Petitioner must explain the differences among its five petitions to institute inter partes review over the same patent, and that the Patent Owner may respond as to whether any differences...
