Indefinite Claims Can Leave IPR Petitioners Empty-Handed
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...
Recent Developments on Article III Standing-to-Appeal AIA Trial Decisions
By Jihong Lou and Matt Johnson Update: The Supreme Court has denied cert in RPX v. ChanBond. In past decisions, the Federal Circuit has made clear that a petitioner appealing a PTAB’s final written decision upholding the patentability of challenged claims after an AIA...
PTAB Designates § 315(b) Time Bar Order Precedential
By Tom Ritchie and Matt Johnson In an order designated precedential, the PTAB terminated an instituted IPR proceeding after the petitioner failed to establish that no real parties in interest (“RPI”) or privies had been served with a complaint more than one year...
POP: Does A Complaint Without Standing Trigger The IPR Time Bar?
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...
Precedential: PTAB Denies Co-Defendant’s Petitions As Unfair Follow-On Petitions
By Alex Li and Matt Johnson On April 2, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a precedential decision that denied three petitions filed by Petitioner Valve Corporation (“Valve”) to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,235,934 (“the ’934 patent”)...