Christmas Vacate-tion—Petitioners Allowed to Raise Fair Extensions of Petition Arguments
By David Linden and Dave Maiorana - Willis Electric Co., Ltd. (“Willis Electric”) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,222,037 (the “’037 Patent”), titled “Decorative lighting with reinforced wiring.” The ’037 Patent claims a decorative lighting design involving a strand of...
Reexam References Count In Section 325(d) Analysis
By Haytham Soliman and Matt Johnson - The Board denied post grant review in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) after applying the Advanced Bionics[1] framework as informed by the factors outlined in Becton.[2] ...
Derivation Decision Offers Several Reminders for Petitioners
By Sarah Geers - The PTAB recently issued a rare decision instituting a derivation proceeding, in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, DER2017-00031 (“GHC”). The GHC institution decision provides several lessons for future petitioners looking to avoid pitfalls that...
PTAB Will Not Hear AAPA-Basis Grounds
By Emily Tait - In a recent decision invalidating numerous claims of a patent related to cochlear implants for hearing loss, the PTAB found that Petitioner improperly relied on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) as the “basis” for one asserted ground, and then...
No Do-Overs: PTAB Denies Motion for Sanctions as Untimely
By Albert Liou and Haytham Soliman - In MG Freesites Ltd v. Scorpcast, LLC, the PTAB recently denied a Petitioner’s request to file a Motion for Sanctions for alleged misconduct by the Patent Owner during depositions because the Petitioner did not raise the issue in a...