Federal Circuit Panel Begrudgingly Upholds PTAB’s Claim Construction But Vacates Finding Of Obviousness On Other Grounds
PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC. In PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 2015-1361 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016), PPC appealed the PTAB’s decisions in four consolidated IPRs finding that each challenged claim in three patents...
Federal Circuit Confirms PTAB Procedure While Faulting Certain Aspects Of PTAB Procedure
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG (Fed. Cir., Feb. 11, 2016). In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 2014-1719 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 11, 2016), Nike appealed the PTAB's decision in IPR2013-00067 to deny their Motion to Amend the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,011 directed to methods for...
Motions to Disqualify Opposing Counsel in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings
Motions to disqualify opposing counsel often raise difficult issues of legal ethics. Behind any motion to disqualify, two competing interests are implicated: the client’s right to the attorney of its choice versus the need to maintain ethical standards of professional...
PGR Eligibility for Patents Issuing from Pre-AIA Examined Applications
US Endotronics, LLC. v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC., PGR2015-00019 Patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, that claim priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013 (“transition applications”), are examined under pre-AIA first-to-invent...
Strategic Use of PTAB’s 325(d) Discretion
The AIA provides PTAB panels a significant amount of discretion in managing their docket, from joinder provisions to the ability to stay or consolidate related, concurrent proceedings in other areas of the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) provides the Board discretion in...