IPR

Subscribe to IPR via RSS

In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and the application of § 285 attorneys’ fees to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards.Continue Reading The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees

In Ioengine, LLC v. Ingenico Inc. No. 2021-1227, 2021-1331, 2021-1332 (Fed. Cir. May 03, 2024), the case addresses the patentability/validity of three patents. In particular, this case discusses the application of the printed matter doctrine during inter partes review, the treatment of newly introduced claim constructions on appeal, and the PTAB’s anticipation and obviousness determinations.Continue Reading Interpreting the Printed Matter Doctrine in Inter Partes Review

In CyWee Group LTD. V. ZTE (USA), Inc., No. 21-1855 (Fed. Cir. 2024), ZTE filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (the ’438 patent) owned by CyWee, which the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”) instituted. LG later filed a separate IPR petition also challenging the ’438 patent and moved to join ZTE’s IPR. LG acknowledged that its IPR petition was untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because CyWee sued LG more than a year before LG filed its petition. LG premised its request for joinder on several limitations, the most relevant of which was that LG would act only as a passive understudy and not assume an active role in the IPR unless ZTE ceased to participate in the instituted IPR.Continue Reading Navigating Revised Motions to Amend in Inter Partes Review as a Non-active, Joined Party

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

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

In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2022-1340, 2022-1341 (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023), the decision addresses the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board” or “PTAB”) obviousness determinations in five final written decisions. Specifically, this decision concerns the Board committed procedural and substantive errors in concluding the prior art references at issue are analogous art.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Grapples with What Constitutes Analogous Art

In Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC, v. Brunswick Corporation No. 2022-1765, pending cite (Fed. Cir. August 24, 2023), Brunswick petitioned for an inter partes review of Volvo’s U.S. Patent No. 9,630,692 patent (“the ’692 patent”) challenging all claims as obvious. Brunswick filed its challenge on the same day as the launch of its competing product – the Bravo Four S. The ’692 patent relates to a stern-mounted motor design with forward, bow-facing propellers. It was undisputed that both Volvo and Brunswick have competing products that embody the ’692 patent.Continue Reading Speed Kills or can at Least Provide a Motivation to Combine

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)