After considering comments from various stakeholders for nearly a year, on July 24, 2023, the USPTO issued the revised interim Director Review Process. Among other changes, the revised process now permits parties to request the Director Review on institution decisions in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. This is a significant expansion of the scope of director review, which allows petitioners who had no appeal options to an IPR denial to now have at least one avenue of review of an institution denial.Continue Reading PTAB Makes Significant Changes to Director Review Process
Harper Batts is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group and Office Managing Partner of the firm's Silicon Valley office.
Since being appointed to the bench in 2018, Judge Alan Albright in Waco Texas has had one of the busiest patent dockets in the nation, rivaling that of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas. He quickly gained a reputation as providing a quick trial schedule and moving a case forward. Judge Albright has stated that he aims to get to trial within 24 months of a complaint being filed.Continue Reading How Quickly are Judge Albright Patent Cases Going to Trial?
As patent litigators are well-aware, the Western District of Texas and the District of Delaware, the two most popular venues for patent litigation, each issued orders regulating litigation in their districts in 2022. So as of early 2023, what effect have those orders had on patent filings?Continue Reading Early 2023 Update: Where Are Plaintiffs Filing Patent Cases Now?
Over the past few years, it has been common to see inconsistent approaches and analysis for 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges, particularly those at the pleading stage. Aatrix, Berkheimer, and subsequent decisions appear to have only led to more inconsistent approaches among district court judges, revealing the glaring flaws of 101 analysis, particularly without more Federal Circuit or Supreme Court guidance.
Continue Reading Delaware 101 Pleading Analysis Leaves Parties Guessing and Prosecutors Moving to Adapt
System art is of increasing importance in patent disputes despite being frequently overlooked or “left for later” in many cases. A recent decision in the Ironburg Inventions v. Valve Corp. case highlights the importance of system prior art, particularly as IPR success rates have dropped from their high points in 2012-15.
Continue Reading Left Empty Handed: Valve Shut Down on Written Prior Art, Highlighting Importance of System Art
In two decisions recently designated as “precedential,” the PTAB rejected two theories raised by petitioners for why the service of a complaint should not trigger Section 315(b)’s one-year time bar for filing a petition. In the first case, the Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that a complaint must be served by a plaintiff that has standing to assert the patent. In the second case, the Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that the service of the complaint must effect personal jurisdiction. Both case results stem from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call Technologies, L.P. v. Ingenio, Inc., where the court held that the plain and unambiguous meaning of Section 315(b)’s time bar merely requires the service of a complaint allege patent infringement, and thus leaves little room for finding exceptions to the time bar’s application.
Continue Reading Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars
Last fall, the PTAB modified its procedures for IPR claim construction, eliminating the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Since the rule change last year, companies challenging the validity of patents at the PTAB are required to use the Phillips plain and ordinary meaning standard.
Continue Reading “Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB”
The USPTO published its second update to the PTAB Trial and Practice Guide last month. The section addressing procedures for addressing multiple challenges to a patent is a new and noteworthy addition.
In the new section addressing “parallel petitions challenging the same patent” by the same petitioner, the Board states that, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.”
Continue Reading New PTAB Guide Creates Uncertainty as to Multiple Petition Situations
In a proceeding that included Patent Office Director Andrei Iancu on the panel, the PTAB issued an order this past week denying institution of 3 IPRs filed by Valve. The decision demonstrates that the PTAB continues to tighten its standards for institution of post-grant challenges, including based upon considerations related to what it perceives as fairness to patent owners.
Continue Reading PTAB Continues to Preclude PTAB Challenges That It Views As Untimely
Video game patents being asserted in litigation are frequently challenged by defendants at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board by filing a petition requesting inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or (less frequently) covered business method review (CBM). Gaming companies need to be cautious in preparing these petitions as the PTAB continues to increase its scrutiny of petitions and is showing a reluctance to “fill in the dots” for deficient petitions.
Continue Reading Challenges in Filing Successful IPR Petitions for Video Game Patents
Those familiar with Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings are no doubt aware of some basic trends with respect to post-grant challenges: Institution rates have dropped over the past two years to around 60 percent, and the likelihood of at least some challenged claims surviving a PTAB proceeding has correspondingly increased. This article, rather than focusing on statistics, analyzes recent case law developments, rule changes and shifting legal frameworks, and presents five factors that companies facing patent infringement claims should consider when determining how to best leverage the advantages of PTAB proceedings.
Continue Reading 5 Things To Consider Before Heading To PTAB