by Greg Castanias | Jun 25, 2019 | Time Limits, Trial Institution
Gregory A Castanias and Jihong Lou On June 24, in Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916 (U.S.), the Supreme Court agreed to review the question whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter partes review...
by Kenneth Luchesi | Jun 17, 2019 | Evidentiary Issues, Trial Institution
By Kenny Luchesi The Board has broad discretion to determine how much weight should be given to inventor testimony, but as long as the testimony does not relate to the inventor’s opinion about the meaning of a claim term, there is no basis for broadly excluding all...
by Matthew Johnson | Jun 5, 2019 | PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson Petitioners beware. The PTAB will not “play archaeologist with the record” or assume the burden of making arguments if the Petitioner fails to present the asserted reasons for invalidity with the required specificity. Amazon Web...
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...
