Category Archives: PTAB

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee.  One of the questions presented to the Court was the appropriate claim construction standard for inter partes review (IPR).  The fundamental dispute, as … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Cuozzo Conundrum: Prosecution History Estoppel Remains An Open Issue

Through its recent decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.[1], the Supreme Court discarded the mechanical two-part test governing enhanced damages fashioned by the Federal Circuit in Seagate, and gave district courts broad discretion to decide when to … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Relaxes The Standard For Increased Patent Damages

As most practitioners know, even a duly issued patent can be invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if the patent’s claims are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea.  Yet, trying to anticipate whether a patent claim … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 35 U.S.C. § 101 – If At First You Don’t Succeed, Try, Try Again

Summary In its February 12, 2016 decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed two issues: (1) whether patent exhaustion applies when a patented item is sold subject to an express single-use/no-resale restriction, and then … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc. – The Latest on Patent Exhaustion

Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International has been hailed by some as an important development in the efforts to curb abusive patent litigation by non-practicing entities, others have raised concerns about unintended effects.  For … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will 101 lead to mutually assured destruction?

PTAB Issues First Precedential Opinion in an AIA Post-Grant Proceeding During an AIA Post-Grant Proceeding, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) can issue three types of decisions: (1) routine, (2) informative, and (3) precedential. Routine decisions are the most … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Litigation, PTAB, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on PTAB Issues First Precedential Opinion in an AIA Post-Grant Proceeding

By now, most patent practitioners are quite familiar with the post-grant patent proceedings (e.g., IPR, PGR, CBM) newly established by the AIA, and their key features, such as the stay and estoppel provisions.  Numerous courts have addressed the issue of … Continue reading

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Litigation, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Estoppel effects of post-grant patent proceedings under the AIA.