Photo of Julianne M. Hartzell

Julianne M. Hartzell

Subscribe to Julianne M. Hartzell's Posts

Ms. Hartzell has significant experience in intellectual property litigation, including cases involving patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret. She also has experience enforcing covenants not-to-compete and confidentiality agreements. Clients hire her to protect their intellectual property rights and to defend them against infringement allegations. She works closely with her clients to understand their business needs and aggressively defends her clients’ interests, seeking the most efficient route to resolve litigation in a way that satisfies those needs. Read full bio here.

Contact:Read more about Julianne M. Hartzell

Form Over FunctionIs there a difference between saying that it would be intuitive to use the features of one prior art reference in combination with another, versus saying that such a combination merely uses a prior art element for its established function? According to two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit apparently thinks so.

In In re: Van Os, Case No. 2015-1975 (January 3, 2017), the Court reversed and remanded the Board’s finding of obviousness, rejecting the Board’s conclusion that the combination of prior art references would have been “intuitive.” The case concerned an appeal of the Board’s decision to sustain the patent examiner’s rejection of Apple’s U.S. Patent Application No. 12/364,470 directed to a touchscreen interface in a portable electronic device that allowed a user to rearrange icons on a display.
Continue Reading Intuitive to Use Versus Use of an Element for its Intended Purpose – Is There a Difference?

Writing on the calendar.

A split panel of the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB applied a standard that was too exacting when it required an inventor to prove the “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence” to antedate a prior art reference. Rather, the PTAB should have applied the rule of reason to determine if the inventor proved that there was “reasonably continuous diligence.” Perfect Surgical Techniques v. Olympus America, Inc., Case No. 2015-2043, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). This clarified standard appears to ease the burden on a party seeking to prove diligence.
Continue Reading To Antedate, Must an Inventor Prove “Continuous Reasonable Diligence” or “Reasonably Continuous Diligence”?

A stamp on a white background that reads: Denied

The Supreme Court recently issued orders (Oct. 3 and Oct. 11) denying several petitions for certiorari challenging aspects of AIA trials. As we previously reported, two of those petitions challenged the constitutionality of AIA trials and the Patent Office’s authority to cancel patent rights between private parties. Cooper v. Lee, __ S.Ct. __, 2016 WL 361681 (Oct. 11, 2016); MCM Portfolio v. Hewlett-Packard Co., et al., __ S.Ct. __, 2016 WL 1724103 (Oct. 11, 2016). On the same day, the Court denied Merck’s petition challenging the Federal Circuit’s deferential standard of review of the PTAB’s AIA trial decisions. Merck & Cie, et al. v. Gnosis S.P.A. et al.,__S.Ct. __, 2016 WL 4014485 (Oct. 11, 2016). We covered the Federal Circuit decision at issue here.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Declines to Weigh in on AIA Issues

Trade SecretsI had the opportunity to attend the ChIPs (Chiefs of Intellectual Property) conference in Washington DC this week and thought that several of the panels that I attended would be of interest to the PTABWatch readership.  The organization is focused on the advancement of women in tech, law, and policy and enjoys strong participation from the judiciary, PTO, copyright office, and many prominent in-house and private-practice attorneys. For more information about ChIPs, check out the website at chipsnetwork.org.
Continue Reading ChIPs Conference Coverage

While the Federal Circuit has accepted, en banc, the question of what a patent owner must demonstrate to the Board to obtain leave to amend its claims in an IPR as discussed in our earlier blog post (In re Aqua Products, No. 2015-1177 petition for rehearing en banc granted, 2016 WL 4375651 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2016)), the court provided some guidance this week on what is not a sufficient basis for denying a motion to amend.
Continue Reading A Limit on the Board’s Power – Denial of Motion to Amend Claims was Unreasonable

Portrait of a young businessman with finger on his lips

On July 1, 2016, The Board awarded attorneys’ fees as a sanction for failure to comply with an agreed protective order. RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (PTAB July 1, 2016). In these IPRs, the patent owner (AIT) disclosed the petitioner’s (RPX’s) confidential information to its president, an attorney representing it in a district court case to which RPX is not a party, and to the CFO of a non-practicing patent licensing company serving as an advisor to AIT. In its order allowing RPX to seek attorneys’ fees, the Board emphasized the importance of promoting respect for and meticulous observance of protective orders.
Continue Reading Shhh, It’s a Secret: Failure to Maintain Confidentiality Can Be Costly

No ExcusesInstitution was denied in two IPR proceedings on the grounds that the petitions were filed more than one year after petitioner was served with a complaint alleging patent infringement. The documents were electronically filed but proof of payment of filing fees were one minute and nine minutes late, respectively. Additionally service had not been completed before the midnight deadline.
Continue Reading The PTAB Has No Sympathy for the Last Minute Filer

Child thinking with Pros and Cons on a blackboard concept for choice, for and against, confusion, inspiration and solution

The Federal Circuit recently confirmed the Board’s interpretation that § 315(e) estoppel does not take effect with respect to prior art that the Board declines to address as redundant. In two recent cases, Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Sys., Nos. 15-1116, 15-1119, __ F.3d __, at*6-9 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2016) and HP, Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Invs., No. 2015-1427, __ F.3d __, at *13 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) the court held that “the noninstituted grounds do not become a part of the IPR” and, thus, estoppel does not apply to those grounds in a subsequent court or Board proceeding.Continue Reading Without Estoppel, Are Redundant Grounds Now a Petitioner’s Friend?

In an earlier blog post from last June, we were unable to find any successful Requests for Rehearing or Reconsideration of a Final Written Decision and concluded that, in most instances, such requests are generally a waste of resources. However, while the PTAB has continued to deny the vast majority of motions for rehearing of a final written decision, it has now granted a few. Those limited number of successful rehearing requests demonstrate that, where you can point to something specific that the Board has overlooked, a request for rehearing may be worthwhile. However, where the Board merely disagrees with your argument, don’t bother.
Continue Reading When Might a Request for Rehearing of Final Decision Be Worthwhile?

On January 5, a district court denied defendant Westlake Services, LLC’s Motion for recovery of costs related to CBM petitions that invalidated certain of the patent claims asserted in the pending litigation and prompted plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the district court case. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, LLC, Case 13cv01523 (C.D. Cal. January 5, 2016). The court’s decision was governed by the language of the local rules identifying taxable costs. Because the local rules provided only recovery for “filing fees paid to the Clerk” and not filing fees paid to other entities, the request to recover the filing fees of $73,200 paid to the USPTO as part of the CBM Proceedings was denied.
Continue Reading District Court Denies Recovery of PTAB Costs in Non-Exceptional Case

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.