No Basis For Broad Exclusion Of Inventor Testimony
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...
Collateral Estoppel Requires Same Grounds, Says PTAB
By Albert Liou The PTAB’s recent decision in TicketNetwork, Inc. v. CEATS, Inc. reminds litigants that collateral estoppel only applies when there is an identity of issues. In the decision, the PTAB refused to find that a claim limitation was disclosed by a prior art...
PTAB Finds Some Pipeline Patent Claims Patentable, Others Amendable
By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson In a rare successful motion to amend, the PTAB found certain claims of a pipeline monitoring system patentable, and allowed substitution of amended claims for others deemed unpatentable. See Syrinix Inc. v. Blacoh Fluid Control...
Chicago-Kent Journal of IP: Precedential Opinion Panel Resolves Conflicts in PTAB Opinions on Joinder
By Jihong Lou, Chris Liu, and Matt Johnson Since its inception through the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the proper role and function of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in adversarial post-grant...
Reexamination Does not Reset the IPR Clock
By Kait Crowder and Dave Cochran In Apple v. IXI IP, the PTAB affirmed that the issuance of a reexamination certificate adding additional claims to a challenged patent does not reset the one-year time bar under § 315(b) to file a petition for inter partes review. In...