Expert Testimony That Does Not Disclose Underlying Facts Or Data Entitled To Little Weight
By James Twieg and Matt Johnson - “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). With that principle in mind, the PTAB recently denied institution of inter...
The “Best Way” to Avoid Adverse Judgment
By: Daniel Sloan, Kevin McCarthy, and Matt Johnson - The PTAB recently denied Bestway (USA), Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) request for PGR of U.S. Pat. No. 11,959,512 B2 (“the ’512 patent”) but declined to enter adverse judgment against Intex Marketing, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”)...
USPTO Finalizes Partial Permanence of MTA Pilot Program
By Adam J. Cook, Kristen VandeVoort,* Daniel Sloan, and Christian Platt - On October 18, 2024, the USPTO’s final rule regarding Motion to Amend (“MTA”) practice and procedures in trial proceedings under the America Invents Act became effective. The rule makes...
District Court Not Persuaded System Prior Art Evades IPR Estoppel
By Dalton Earich,* Matt Modderman, and Matt Johnson - On October 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Comcast Corporation (“Comcast”) to identify the date on which it learned of each patent, patent application,...
Petitioner Mistakenly Ignores Not-So-Optional Claim Limitation
By Jack Graves and Matt Johnson - The PTAB recently excluded a portion of Duration Media LLC’s (Petitioner) reply declaration for containing improper new evidence in an inter partes review petition filed against Rich Media Club LLC (Patent Owner) challenging all...