No IPR Institution Due to a District Court Trial Eleven Months Away
By Matthew Chung*, Jasper L. Tran, and Matt Johnson Our previous blog post on NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., No. IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential), noted the PTAB’s exercise of its § 314(a) discretion to deny IPR institution,...
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...