Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC resolving a longstanding district court split by holding that IPR estoppel does not extend to system art “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public.”
A claim that recites a combination of prior art elements may be obvious when the combination merely involves the use of a “known technique” that “has been used to improve one device” to “improve similar devices in the same way.”
Expert testimony can be critical to support or defend against invalidity challenges in AIA trials, but must be adequately explained to be effective. In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2023), Director Vidal
Whether in the patent’s specification or prosecution history, the disavowal of claim scopemust be “clear and unmistakable.”
In a move that may make it harder to invalidate—but also potentially easier to limit the scope of—challenged patents, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on May 8 proposed narrowing the interpretation of patent claims during AIA validity trials.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board today hosted a “Chat with the Chief” webinar to elaborate on the practical effects of its April 26 memo implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu. Of particular note
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu will rapidly impact pending and future AIA trials. According to a guidance memo released by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 26, 2018, future institution decisions “will
The United States Supreme Court in SAS Institute struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s practice of instituting inter partes review (IPR) on only a subset of claims challenged in the petition. SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu, 584
In its long-awaited Oil States decision, the United States Supreme Court today held that the Constitution does not preclude the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from reviewing the validity of issued US patents. Oil States Energy Servs., Inc.
In the past several months, the PTAB has designated as “informative” five decisions in which the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). That statute provides that the board may reject a petition if “the