SAS Files Opening Brief in Supreme Court Opposing “Partial” Final Written Decisions
By Greg Castanias On July 20, SAS Institute, Inc., represented by Jones Day, filed its opening brief in the Supreme Court. SAS's brief amplifies the arguments, initially set forth in its petition for certiorari and reply brief in support of certiorari, that neither...
PTAB Terminates IPR Just Under the Statutory Wire
By Jaime Choi Ph.D. and Dave Cochran The patent statute requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to issue a final written decision within one year of instituting an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The recent case of Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeo LLC...
PTAB Denies Joinder of IPR Petitioner That Won’t Take “Silent Understudy” Role
By Achim Brinker, Ph.D. and Cary Miller, Ph.D. In orders entered July 10 and 12, 2017, the PTAB instituted further inter partes review (IPR) of six Allergan Inc. (“Allergan”) patents relating to cyclosporine compositions. Each of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,633,162,...
Design Patents at the PTAB?
By John Evans Ph.D. and John Froemming In the wake of the high-profile dispute in Apple v. Samsung, design patent procurement and enforcement activity has increased significantly. But practitioners may not appreciate that design patent validity can be attacked using...
PTAB Denies Motion to Withdraw as IPR Counsel
By Jeff Giering, Ph.D. and Carl Kukkonen In an order entered June 30, 2017, the PTAB denied a motion by counsel for patent owner Purple Leaf, LLC (“Counsel”) to withdraw from representation in a trio of IPRs (IPR2016-01720, IPR2016-01721, and IPR2016-01722). Counsel...