In In re NuVasive, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified what constitutes adequate notice to a Patent Owner of “pertinent portions” of a prior art reference relied upon in an IPR petition. Case No. 2015-1672 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2016)
PTAB denies Petitioner’s motion to suspend prosecution of co-pending applications
In Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to suspend prosecution of co-pending patent applications that were continuations of the challenged patent. PGR2015-00018, Paper 62 (Aug. 29, 2016).
PTAB grants inaugural award of attorneys’ fees
In RPX Corporation v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, the PTAB awarded attorneys’ fees for the first time in an AIA post-issuance proceeding. The Board had previously granted the Petitioner’s motion for sanctions in response to the Patent Owner’s
Federal Circuit rules that PTAB failed to adequately describe its reasoning for obviousness finding
In a recent decision vacating the PTAB’s obviousness findings in an IPR, the Federal Circuit set forth criteria necessary to support future obviousness findings. Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., No. 2015-1316 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2016) (nonprecedential).
In
Federal Circuit rules that PTAB has full discretion to deny request to file motion for supplemental information
A unanimous Federal Circuit panel recently affirmed the PTAB’s decision denying a Petitioner’s request to file a motion to submit an expert report as supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a). Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., No.
PTAB denies patent owner’s motion to request a certificate of correction
A patent owner who wishes to use a certificate of correction to correct an alleged defect in a patent subject to a pending IPR must first obtain authorization from the PTAB before a request for certificate of correction can be
PTAB denies request for termination, finding it amounted to a motion to stay
In PNC Bank NA v. Parus Holdings, Inc., the PTAB denied the Parties’ joint request for authorization to file a motion to terminate because the requested “termination” would merely amount to a stay of proceedings pending appeal in an
PTAB provides guidance on demonstrating public accessibility of prior art
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
PTAB rules that standing for CBM proceeding must only exist at the time a petition is filed
In Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., the PTAB denied a Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate. IPR2014-00176, Paper 41 (Sept. 3, 2015). In so ruling, the Board made it clear that
PTAB Declines to Sanction Petitioner Based on Alleged “Profit Motive”
In Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp., a six-judge panel denied a Patent Owner’s Motion for Sanctions against a Petitioner allegedly using IPRs to attack the Patent Owner’s primary product lines in an apparent attempt to