Topics Claim construction USPTO Proposes to Narrow Claim Interpretation in AIA Patent-Validity TrialsNo due process violation where PTAB "previews" new construction at oral hearingFederal Circuit criticizes PTAB for changing claim construction midstream Discovery New PTAB Rules Take Effect May 2, 2016Refused Cross-Examination Results in PTAB Striking Non-Party Witness DeclarationPTAB denies motion seeking cross-examination of inventor, finding that patent specification is not “affidavit testimony” Estoppel All-or-Nothing: Supreme Court Requires Instituted IPRs to Address All Challenged ClaimsEDTX judge rules that IPR estoppel applies to all grounds included in the petition, except those that are denied for purely procedural reasons Experts New PTAB Rules Take Effect May 2, 2016PTAB cautiously authorizes motion to disqualify expertExpert testimony is not always necessary to show unpatentability in IPRs Federal Circuit Federal Circuit clarifies what IPR petition must disclose to provide adequate notice to Patent OwnerCAFC requires weighing diligence evidence as a whole and rejects “scouring” for gapsNo due process violation where PTAB "previews" new construction at oral hearing General System Art: Goodbye IPR Estoppel, Hello Fintiv DenialsA “known technique” only needs to be a suitable replacement to support a conclusion of obviousnessDon’t Xerox conclusory assertions in the expert declaration Institution decisions More SAS: PTAB “May” Revoke Institution in Some Pending TrialsAll-or-Nothing: Supreme Court Requires Instituted IPRs to Address All Challenged ClaimsDistrict Court holds that IPR estoppel does not apply to grounds denied institution on the merits Motions to amend Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB's Analysis of Motion to AmendNew PTAB Rules Take Effect May 2, 2016Federal Circuit re-affirms and clarifies PTAB rules for motions to amend claims Statistics PTAB Usually Misses the One-Month Pendency Goal for Requests for Rehearing
