In Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (Review Panel of the PTAB, Sept. 26, 2025), the PTAB Appeals Review Panel (“Review Panel”) vacated a decision of the PTAB that had sua sponte entered a new ground of rejection of claims relating to artificial intelligence (AI) systems under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The new Under Secretary
In Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, (“Ericsson”), v TCL Corporation, (“TCL”), 2017-2381, -2385 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that canceled claims in an Ericsson patent that TCL challenged based on its subsidiary finding that a German journal article TCL presented was indeed prior art. The decision is important because it offers guidance in assessing what type of evidence may be persuasive in a PTAB’s assessment of the public accessibility of a journal article whose publication date is close to the challenged patent’s critical date.
Continue Reading Raiders of the Lost Art
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 that only some claims of Immersion Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 were challengeable by Apple Inc. in an IPR because the ‘571 patent failed to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the “drive module limitation” recited in claim 12 to determine the scope and meaning of claim 12. Apple Inc., v. Immersion Corporation, IPR2016-01372, Paper 7 (January 11, 2017).
Continue Reading PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims
In Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reviewed the final written decisions in CBM reviews of three related patents owned by Ameranth, Inc., directed to computerized systems for generating and displaying menus for use in the restaurant industry. The court determined that the PTAB properly construed all disputed claim terms, determined that the patents are CBM patents, and determined that most challenged claims were unpatentable under § 101, but that the PTAB erred in concluding that some dependent claims were not unpatentable under § 101.
More specifically, the claims in the disputed Ameranth patents are directed to a “first menu that has categories and items, and software that can generate a second menu from the first menu by allowing categories and items to be selected.”
Continue Reading PTAB Should Have Canceled All Challenged Claims in CBM Reviews
On July 6, 2016, the PTAB cancelled claims in a patent which had bedeviled more than 250 named defendants in litigation dating back to 2008. The list of defendants reads like a Who’s Who of financial and commercial businesses, including the nation’s most prominent banks, credit card companies, online stock traders, e-Commerce retailers, cable and telecommunications companies, airlines, and even all twelve of the nation’s Federal Reserve banks. Any plans the patent owner had to continue its siege of these vast tracts of economic activity were brought to a halt by the PTAB’s final written decision in MasterCard International, Inc. v. Stambler, Case CBM2015-00044, Paper 32 (PTAB 2016), which found that the petitioner, MasterCard, had proven the challenged claims were anticipated by and/or obvious over prior art.
Continue Reading PTAB Finds Motivation to Combine References, but Cancellation Comes Too Late for More than 200 Defendants
NRT Technology Corporation was not successful in petitioning the PTAB to institute CBM review of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,792, but was successful in moving a district court to dismiss an infringement action concerning the same patent on the basis that the patent claims ineligible (abstract) subject matter. Global Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Tech. Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00822 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2016) (Order) (granting motion to dismiss). The apparently inconsistent PTAB and district court dispositions will no doubt encourage accused-infringers/putative-petitioners who do not succeed in initiating AIA (trial) review under a low evidentiary burden to try to invalidate the patent in district court under a higher evidentiary standard. Further, these decisions collectively demonstrate how a PTAB’s institution decision denying AIA review can be, without an appeal, effectively nullified by a parallel or later court proceeding.
Continue Reading No Appellate Review, No Matter: District Court Invalidates Patent After the PTAB Denies CBM Review
Shakespeare’s Juliet famously observes, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” The PTAB begs to differ. While a generic computing device may not render abstract claims patentable, introduce it with a fancy nom de guerre and you have got yourself patentable subject matter.
Continue Reading PTAB to Shakespeare: “ ‘What’s in a Name?’ Are you Kidding? Everything!”