PTAB Nixes IPR Revival
By Ariana Tsanas*, Matt Johnson, and Daniel Sloan - On May 6th, 2024, the PTAB declined Ubiquiti Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request to institute inter partes review. Ubiquiti Inc. v. XR Communications LLC D/B/A Vivato Tech., IPR2024-00148, Paper 12 (May 6, 2024). The...
PTAB Statistics Through Seven Months of FY2024
By Tom Ritchie - The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2024 through the end of April 2024 (the period from Oct. 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024) stands at 66% (427 instituted, 230 denied). This rate remains flat compared to the previous two fiscal years...
IPR Estoppel in Action
By Sabrina Bellantoni and Matt Johnson - Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...
PTAB Institutes IPR on Compelling Merits, Despite Other Fintiv Factors Favoring Denial
By David Linden and Dave Maiorana - On October 27, 2023, Inergy Technology, Inc. (“Inergy”) filed concurrent petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,629,634 (“the ’634 Patent”) (“IPR093”) and 7,812,409 (“the ’409 Patent”) (“IPR094”), each...
Road Mapping Leads to Dead End
By Dave Cochran and Daniel Sloan - On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071, Paper 7...