In Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Case No. 2015-1513, -1514 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated in part the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2013-00440, on the basis that the PTAB improperly canceled a claim based on a factual assertion first raised by the petitioner at final hearing, too late for the patent owner to meaningfully respond.
Continue Reading PTAB Cannot Cancel Claim Based on New Argument Raised at Final Hearing
In Redline Detection, LLC v Star Envirotech, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision that the petitioner failed to show that the challenged claims were obvious, and upholding the PTAB’s decision denying the petitioner’s motion to submit an expert declaration as supplemental evidence, after the PTAB instituted the IPR.
Continue Reading Petitioner Blows Smoke with Late-Filed Declaration
In the first full reversal of a PTAB IPR decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s ruling in Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O, on the basis that the PTAB incorrectly construed the claim term “is,” in claims directed to a computer program for online communications.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Decision Based on Incorrect Construction of “Is”
Final written decisions, IPR2014-00781, IPR2014-01086, IPR2014-00821, IPR2004-00580, IPR2014-00802, for IPRs of several patents owned by Zond, LLC, which include rare dissenting opinions, illustrate different views of APJs concerning the requirements for establishing that a reference is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). These decisions provide helpful guidance on how to address references whose status as a printed publication may be in dispute.
Continue Reading APJs Dispute Requirements for a Reference to Qualify as a Printed Publication
As reported earlier, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision in SAP v. Versata, No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. 2015), its first final written decision in a CBM review. As part of that decision, the Court determined that it had jurisdiction to determine whether the patent at issue was a “covered business method patent” within scope of the PTAB’s authority for a CBM review under Section 18 of the American Invents Act (“AIA”), and that such review by the Court was not precluded by 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), which provides that a decision to institute a CBM review is “final and nonappealable.”
Continue Reading Dissent in SAP v. Versata: Federal Circuit Lacks Authority to Review
The PTAB denied a Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate an IPR without a final written decision, made only two months after the Board issued a decision instituting the IPR. Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., Case IPR2015-00035, Paper No. 30 (June 25, 2015).
After institution of an IPR but before the Patent Owner had filed a response, the Petitioner Masterimage 3D, Inc. sought permission to request adverse judgment and termination of the IPR, to avoid the estoppel effects of a final written decision. The Patent Owner opposed this request, on the basis that it desires the Petitioner to be bound by estoppel effects of a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e); and because the Patent Owner may file a motion to amend in the proceeding.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision
Following oral argument in an appeal of an IPR in which the PTAB canceled a number of challenged claims and denied the Patent Owner’s motions to amend, the Federal Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties and the Director of the USPTO (Intervenor), concerning interpretation of the PTAB rule for filing motions to amend during an IPR, 37 CFR § 42.121. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case Nos. 2014-1542, -1543, Dkt. 49 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2015). The questions raised by the Federal Circuit panel suggest that the Court is likely to provide guidance on the PTAB’s claim amendment procedures when it issues its decision in the appeal.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Expected to Provide Guidance on PTAB Claim Amendment Procedures
On May 27, 2015, the Board issued a final written decision in Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm & Hass Co., IPR2014-00185, confirming the patentability of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,020,435.
The ‘435 patent is directed to a chemical process for preparing low-density “hollow” or “voided” multi-stage emulsion polymers used in coating compositions such as paints. These emulsion polymers are generally prepared by swelling a core/shell emulsion polymer in such a way that one or more voids form in the interior of the emulsion polymer particle.
Continue Reading PTAB Upholds Claims Directed to Chemical Process Based on Expert Testimony and Experimental Evidence