In TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, Appeal No. 2015-1631 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2016), a unanimous Federal Circuit panel affirmed a PTAB final written decision that concluded the petitioner (TriVascular) did not meet its burden of demonstrating the challenged claims were unpatentable during inter partes review. TriVascular successfully petitioned the Board to institute the review after the patent owner (Samuels) accused TriVascular of infringing the same patent in a California federal court. TriVascular’s short-lived success, however, was tempered by the Board’s claim construction in the institution decision that differed from the construction TriVascular sought in its petition.
Continue Reading The Board’s Prerogative to Change its Mind May Doom Petition after Institution
In SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 
The PTAB recently issued an order applying the estoppel provision of the AIA (35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) to dismiss a petitioner from covered business method (CBM) patent review proceedings a few days before a consolidated final hearing. 
The PTAB recently denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) on the basis of the estoppel provision of the AIA (35 USC § 315(e)). 
f the asserted claims. Often enough, the accused first identifies its invalidity positions and prior art to the Patent Owner through litigation pleadings and discovery. Indeed, many even seek to settle the litigation before either party expends additional resources litigating the matter. But, often enough, the accused are spurned.
The Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion deciding 
Petitioners seeking CBM review have enjoyed good success in knocking out claims for reciting subject matter ineligible for a patent. They have not, however, enjoyed similar success when challenging claims under 35 USC § 112 (concerning clarity, enablement, or written description).