The familiar standard for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 states, in part, that a “person shall be entitled to a patent unless” the claimed invention was “described in a printed publication . . . or otherwise available to the
NRF Digital Team
PTAB confirms that assignor estoppel does not apply in IPRs
By NRF Digital Team on
The PTAB recently confirmed that the doctrine of assignor estoppel does not apply to IPR proceedings. Esselte Corp. v. Sanford L.P., IPR2015-00771, Paper 13 (Aug. 28, 2015). Assignor estoppel is an equitable doctrine that generally prohibits an assignor…
PTAB offers Patent Owners a “sense of comfort” in making motions to amend
By NRF Digital Team on
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,…
Federal Circuit addresses use of BRI standard and motions to amend claims in IPRs
By NRF Digital Team on
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 holds patent CBM-eligible because of its application in the banking industry
By NRF Digital Team on
In a recent CBM institution decision, the PTAB held at least one claim in the challenged patent was directed to a financial product or service because the claimed invention has application in the banking industry. Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,…
PTAB corrects petition’s filing date because e-filing system was down
By NRF Digital Team on
In E*Trade Financial Corporation, et al. v. Droplets, Inc., the PTAB granted a motion to change the filing date of an IPR petition, according a filing date based on the initial submission of the petition via e-mail when the…
PTAB grants Patent Owner’s adverse judgment request, thereby barring joinder of subsequent IPR petition
By NRF Digital Team on
In Artsana USA, Inc. v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc., the PTAB granted the Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) and found the challenged patent claims to be unpatentable. IPR2014-01053, Paper 24 (April 3, 2015).…
PTAB permits post-institution challenge to identification of all real-parties-in-interest
By NRF Digital Team on
In GEA Process Engineering, Inc., v. Steuben Foods, Inc., the PTAB vacated its institution decision and terminated five IPRs because the petitions failed to identify all real-parties-in-interest (RPIs). IPR2014-00041, Paper 140 (December 23, 2014) (Public redacted version).
The…
Expert testimony is not always necessary to show unpatentability in IPRs
By NRF Digital Team on
In Guangdong Xinbao Electrical Appliances Holdings v. Adrian Rivera, the PTAB denied a motion to exclude an expert declaration relied upon by the Petitioner in its Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response. In its ruling, the Board took the…
PTAB terminates IPR after institution for failure to identify all real parties in interest
By NRF Digital Team on
In Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., the PTAB vacated its institution decision and terminated the IPR because the petition failed to identify all real parties in interest. IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 (Jan. 6, 2015).
35…