Tag Archives: Indefiniteness

Fitbit Dodges a Bullet—Entitled to Appeal Portion of Apple’s Petition Which It Did Not Join

By Thomas L. Duston on Posted in Amendments, Appeals, Claim Construction, Joinder, Sections 102/103
In Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., Appeal 2019-1048 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2020), the Federal Circuit determined that Fitbit, who had successfully sought joinder in an IPR petition filed by Apple, had standing to appeal an adverse determination as to certain patent claims, despite Fitbit’s failure to join that portion of Apple’s Petition. The Federal … Continue Reading

Come on, Board, Finish What You Started

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Section 112, Sections 102/103
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeals 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020), is remarkable, but not for its holding: “the Board may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in an IPR proceeding.” After 10,000 IPRs, hardly anyone thought otherwise. But it’s interesting nonetheless that someone so … Continue Reading

Board Decision Grants Motion to Amend With Respect to One Substitute Claim and Denies Motion to Amend With Respect to Other Substitute Claim

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Amendments, Inter Partes Review, IPR
The Board’s recent decision in Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00090 (PTAB July 17, 2017), provides patent practitioners with a framework for analyzing proposed substitute claims.  The Board’s decision, granting patent owner’s motion to amend in part, should be considered in conjunction with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Veritas Technologies LLC … Continue Reading

PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims

By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D. on Posted in Claim Construction, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Section 112, Sections 102/103
Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22.  The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims.  Section 112 deficiencies are not grounds to challenge a patent in an IPR, but the PTAB has authority to find such deficiencies. Recently, the PTAB decided … Continue Reading

District Court Rejects Indefiniteness Argument Despite Board Finding of No Corresponding Structure for Means-Plus-Function Claim

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, Section 112
A pair of recent decisions, one from a federal district court and another from the PTAB, highlight the potential of inconsistent results regarding patent validity. In Microwave Vision, S.A. v. ETS-Lindgren Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:14-CV-1153-SCJ (D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2016), the court denied an accused infringer’s (ETS’s) motion for summary judgment of invalidity, after … Continue Reading
LexBlog