Federal Circuit: Petitioner Estoppel Does Not Apply to Product Prior Art Grounds
By Omar Jishi and Matt Johnson - In IOENGINE, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit narrowed the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting in court that a patent claim “is invalid on any...
PTAB Denies Institution of IPRs in Apple v. Haptic
By Carl Kukkonen - In two recent decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings sought by Apple Inc. against Haptic, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,996,738 B2. These decisions—IPR2024-01475 and...
INFORMATIVE: Acting Director Rescinds Institution Where Claims Held Invalid in District Court Case
By David Linden, Dave Maiorana, and Sue Gerber - On August 22, 2024, Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) filed two separate petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,768 (“the ’768 Patent”), assigned to Piranha Media Distribution, LLC (“Piranha”). The ’768...
PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination
By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson - In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the same...
PTAB Allows Three Concurrent IPR Petitions for Unusual Patent Claims
By Shane Padilla and Matt Johnson - Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming...