PTAB Precedential Decision Recap
The PTAB has been very active in designating decisions precedential and informative in 2019. Here's a recap of designations so far: Real parties in interest, 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(2), 322(a)(2) Precedential - Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., Case PGR2019-00001,...
PTAB Applies Statutory Grace Period to Filing of Continuing Applications
By Catharina Chin Eng and Matt Johnson The PTAB has previously applied to IPR filings the statutory grace period under 35 U.S.C. § 21(b) for USPTO papers and fees due on a weekend or holiday. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Immersion Corp., Case IPR2018-01468, slip op. at...
Panel Including Director Iancu Institutes Unchallenged Petition for IPR
By Mike Lavine and Matt Johnson On September 6, 2019, a PTAB panel including USPTO Director Andrei Iancu instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,279,259 (“the ‘259 Patent”). The ‘259 Patent is directed to a tile lippage removal system and is owned...
Precedential Order Confirms Involuntary Dismissal Triggers § 315(b) Time Bar
By Amanda Leckman and Carl Kukkonen On November 21, 2017, Petitioner Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC, filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 B2. In its Preliminary Response, filed on March 7, 2018, Patent Owner...
Should You File A “Copycat” IPR Petition?
By Alex Li and Matt Johnson If you don’t have new grounds to add, you may as well copycat. On September 4, 2019, the PTAB denied Microsoft’s petition requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 (“the ’487 patent”); furthermore, the panel also...