PTAB Denies Institution Because of Pending Reexamination Considering Same Prior Art
By Geoffrey Gavin In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,...
District Court Considers IPR In Deciding Alice Motion
By Doug Clark and Christian Platt On November 20, 2017, a district court denied a defendant’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion that sought to dismiss the case on the ground that the asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ...
The Federal Circuit Criticizes A PTAB Partial Institution
By Dave Maiorana The PTAB’s practice of partially instituting IPRs has been in the news lately, with Jones Day recently arguing against that practice at the Supreme Court on behalf of the SAS Institute (“SAS”). On December 5, 2017, the week after the Supreme Court...
Inherent Obviousness: Available IPR Rationale With a High Standard
By Jeff Giering, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. On November 28, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision upholding the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061 (IPR2016-01096). The ’061 patent is owned by Alkermes Pharma Ireland, Ltd. and Alkermes Controlled...
Supreme Court Reviews Constitutionality of PTAB Proceedings
By Matt Johnson On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of PTAB post-grant trials in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 (U.S.). The question posed to the Court is “Whether inter partes...