ParkerVision, Inc., v. Katherin K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and USPTO Director No. 2022-1548, (Fed. Cir. December 15, 2023) primarily involved three topics: (1) the type of language in a patent specification that “clearly expresses” that the inventor was acting as a lexicographer, i.e., redefining a term against the term’s plain and ordinary meaning, (2) the appropriate scope of a reply brief when a patent owner introduces a claim construction for the first time in the patent owner response, and (3) the appropriate scope of a sur-reply brief to a reply brief. The Federal Circuit also engaged in a fact-specific obviousness inquiry regarding capacitor elements disclosed in the prior art.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Rules on Inventor-as-Lexicographer Definitions and the Proper Scope of Reply and Sur-Reply Briefing Following Patent Owner Responses to IPR Institution Decisions
This article was originally posted to Law360.Continue Reading Is 2024 the Year When We Will Finally Know the Scope of IPR Estoppel?
In Incept v. Palette Life Sciences 21-2063, 21-2065 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2023), the case addresses the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations in two IPRs (IPR2020-00002 and IPR2020-00004), where the Board held the claims in the challenged patents unpatentable as anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the asserted prior art.Continue Reading Anticipation and Obviousness in Patent Law: An Analysis of Recent IPR Decisions
In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim construction is correct when the intrinsic evidence supports a different construction and relatedly whether the PTAB’s first final written decision relying on its claim construction should be vacated and remanded and (2) whether, in the second final written decision, the PTAB’s reliance on an invalidity ground not raised by any party should be vacated and remanded.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Decision Based on an Overly Narrow Claim Construction
This decision addresses the PTAB’s secondary considerations analysis in an IPR Final Written Decision.Continue Reading Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC 2022-1373, 2022-1374 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2023)
This case addresses the “skilled and diligent searcher” standard used for establishing Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) estoppel (or lack thereof). In particular, this case establishes: (1) which party bears the burden of proof regarding whether a “skilled and diligent searcher” could have reasonably been expected to discover prior art such that failure to include it in an IPR petition estops the petitioner from raising it in other civil actions under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2); and (2) the “skilled and diligent searcher” inquiry itself with respect to what a skilled and diligent searcher reasonably would have been expected to discover.Continue Reading Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023)
In a per curium order issued under seal May 3, 2023 but recently made public, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board awarded sanctions against Patent Owner, Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, canceling all challenged claims of its five asserted patents for its “egregious abuse of the PTAB process.” Particularly, the Board determined that Patent Owner, through its counsel, failed to meet its duty of candor and fair dealing before the Board by “selectively and improperly” withholding information material to the patentability of the claims challenged in the IPR proceeding.Continue Reading “Egregious Abuse” of the PTAB Process Leads to Adverse Decision Sanctions in IPR Proceeding
PART 4: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LEGISLATION TO WATCH IN 2020
In this four-part series, we take a look forward at the cases, legislation, and other trends that are likely to have a significant impact on intellectual property law and practice in 2020. In the first three parts of the series, we looked at the IP issues currently pending before the Supreme Court, possible changes to the law of patent eligibility, and hot topics surrounding inter partes review proceedings. In this last part of our series, we look at proposed legislation related to intellectual property issues. In particular, we consider:
- The “Inventor Rights Act,” which would establish protections for “inventor-owned patents,” including a prohibition on USPTO reexamination of such patents without the patentee’s consent;
- The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act of 2019, which would establish a small claims tribunal within the Copyright Office to address copyright disputes involving less than $30,000 in damages;
- The Counterfeit Goods Seizure Act of 2019, which would authorize the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency to seize counterfeit articles that infringe a design patent; and
- The Trademark Modernization (“TM”) Act of 2020, which would establish new ex parte procedures in the USPTO to expunge trademarks obtained based on false claims that the marks were used in commerce.
PART 3: HOT TOPICS RELATED TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
In this four-part series, we take a look forward at the cases, legislation, and other trends that are likely to have a significant impact on intellectual property law and practice in 2020. In the first two parts of the series, we looked at the IP issues currently pending before the Supreme Court and possible changes to the law of patent eligibility.
In this third part of the series, we look at several issues related to inter partes review proceedings that we expect to be hot topics in 2020, including:
- Whether the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution;
- Whether the PTAB will allow a greater number of claim amendments under the Pilot Program announced in March 2019;
- Whether the deadline to file an IPR petition should continue to run when an infringement case is dismissed without prejudice;
- Whether invalidation of patent claims in an IPR should retroactively annul district court decisions on infringement and validity; and
- Whether the PTAB will be able to coherently apply the new standard for identifying real-parties-in-interest.
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
In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal’s Board (PTAB) is required to explicitly state motivations to combine prior-art references in claim rejections for obviousness. Rejections that rely on mere statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the prior-art references would understand that the combination would have allowed for claimed features is not enough.
Continue Reading You’re So Vague: Federal Circuit Sends IPR Decision Back to PTAB for More Thorough Analysis