Much discussion has followed the PTAB’s June 11, 2013 opinion in Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26. The main controversy has been the language included in the opinion stating that in motions to amend,
PTAB does not have jurisdiction in IPRs to review procedural issues from the original prosecution
In Samsung Electronics Co. v. E-Watch, Inc., the PTAB rejected an IPR Petitioner’s attempt to challenge the correctness of the USPTO’s decision on a Petition to Revive during the original prosecution. IPR2015-00612, Paper 8 (Jul. 8, 2015).
The
PTAB institutes IPR based on prior art that was previously presented to the USPTO
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the PTAB “may take into account whether, and reject [a] petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In Microsoft Corp. v. Parallel
PTAB denies IPR petition for failure to be clear and succinct
In Apple, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., the PTAB denied the Petitioner’s IPR petition because it did not “focus on concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record,” but instead was a “repository of all the
PTAB considers a copyright notice to be evidence of publication
In LG Electronics, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the PTAB held that a copyright notice in a cited reference was evidence of publication as of the copyright date. The PTAB also held that a date without a copyright
Federal Circuit confirms that statutory bar defense to AIA proceedings is not subject to waiver
In GTNX, Inc., v. Inttra, Inc., — F.3d —, 2015 WL 3692319 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that a Patent Owner’s failure to invoke the statutory bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1)
Federal Circuit addresses use of BRI standard and motions to amend claims in IPRs
In Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., — F.3d —, 2015 WL 3747257 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015), the Federal Circuit once again affirmed that the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard of claim construction applies in IPRs, providing further
PTAB confirms IPR petitions cannot be time-barred based on ITC complaint
Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), a petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner has only one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement to request inter partes review of the patent-in-suit. In LG Electronics, Inc. v.
Judicial review of PTAB institution decisions: When one door closes, another opens
In a group of recent decisions the Federal Circuit held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the PTO’s decision to institute both IPR and CBM proceedings. However, with regard to CBM proceedings, the Court appears to have created a potential
PTAB confirms that estoppel does not bar subsequent petitions on non-instituted claims
In Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., the PTAB denied a Patent Owner’s motion to terminate a CBM proceeding, holding that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) does not apply to claims previously denied institution. CBM2014-00176, Paper 28