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
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
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
The material contained on this blog is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Views expressed are those of the author and are not to be attributed to Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or any of its clients. The publication and receipt of any information contained on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or with any of its attorneys. Readers should not act upon any information on this site without seeking professional legal counsel.