by Matthew Johnson | Jan 16, 2018 | PTAB News, Time Limits, Trial Institution
By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On January 10, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions weighing on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as informative: Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2017) (AIA § 315(b), insufficient funds at filing) Amneal...
by Geoffrey Gavin | Dec 21, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Geoffrey Gavin In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...
by David Maiorana | Dec 13, 2017 | Federal Circuit, Trial Institution
By Dave Maiorana The PTAB’s practice of partially instituting IPRs has been in the news lately, with Jones Day recently arguing against that practice at the Supreme Court on behalf of the SAS Institute (“SAS”). On December 5, 2017, the week after the Supreme Court...
by Matthew Johnson | Nov 7, 2017 | PTAB News, Trial Institution
On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman, Case IPR2016-01571 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (Paper 10) In this decision, the Board denied...
by Joe Sauer | Nov 7, 2017 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
by Seth M. Bostrom and Joseph M. Sauer The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated as informative three cases involving discretionary denial of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We previously profiled the case of Hospira, Inc. v....
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 27, 2017 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below. We previously reported on Hospira, Inc. v....
