Follow On Petition Denied for Implicit “Significant Relationship”
By Jen Bachorik and Matt Johnson - In Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 2017, LLC, IPR2019-01550 (PTAB March 17, 2020) (Paper 8), the PTAB denied institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314, exercising its discretion to deny “follow-on petitions” challenging the...
Focus on Fintiv Factor Four
By Dave Cochran - In its precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), the PTAB set forth a six factor “holistic” test for balancing considerations of system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality when a patent...
SCOTUS Says “Fresenius/Simmons Preclusion Principle” Stays Alive
By John Kinton - The Supreme Court recently denied Chrimar Systems, Inc. (Chrimar)’s petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s “Fresenius/Simmons preclusion principle,” under which Chrimar’s district court victory against ALE USA Inc. (ALE)[1]...
LEAP: Additional PTAB Argument Time Offered For Junior Attorneys
By Stephanie M. Brooker and Matthew Johnson - Less experienced patent practitioners may be granted additional oral argument time in front of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) with the Legal Experience and Advancement Program (LEAP). LEAP helps foster...
Section 315(a) Calls At Institution Cannot Be Reviewed
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson - Recently, we reported about the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the AIA’s “no appeal” provision in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) means that the PTAB’s decision not to institute IPR because a petition is time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)...