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
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
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
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)
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
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.,
In Globus Medical, Inc. v. DePuy Synthes Products, LLC, the PTAB denied institution because the Petitioner failed to prove that one of the references relied upon in all of the invalidity grounds was § 102(e) prior art. IPR2015-00099, Paper
In Hughes Network Sys., LLC v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., the PTAB addressed a Patent Owner’s challenge to the availability of two papers from the same conference (albeit different years) as printed publications for use against the challenged claims.
In Square, Inc., v. Unwired Planet, LLC, the PTAB denied the Petitioner’s request for rehearing of a decision not to institute a Covered Business Method Review on prior art grounds because the petition failed to show that a non-patent
In Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, the PTAB considered the effect of a statutory disclaimer, statements in the specification, and the patent’s assigned classification on whether the challenged patent was eligible for a Covered Business Method