Tag: claims
-
Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products Decision Clarifies Burden on IPR Petitioner to Challenge Amended Claims
—
by
in Adjudicative instead of examinatorial, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, estoppel from administrative proceeding, Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings, Motion to Amend, preponderance of evidence, reexamination generally, Settlements in Post-Grant Proceedings, Termination of Post-Grant ProceedingsOn October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued a lengthy decision in Aqua Products v. Matal, spanning five opinions and 148 pages, which addressed the proper allocation of the burden of proof when amended claims are offered during inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”). Aqua Prods. v. Matal, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19293. The case concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183, relating to…
-
PTAB Narrows Its Preliminary Claim Interpretation To Uphold Cellular Patent
In July, 2014 Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 owned by Intellectual Ventures II LLC (“IV”). In February, 2015, the Board instituted trial on claims 1 and 2 based on obviousness grounds, but denied institution of obviousness…
-
Supreme Court’s Stryker/Halo Decision Makes it Easier for Courts to Award Enhanced Damages In Patent Infringement Cases
The recent Supreme Court decisions in the Stryker and Halo cases just made it easier for courts to award enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, discarding Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test. The Seagate Test In 2007, the Federal Circuit announced a test for enhanced damages whereby a plaintiff seeking enhanced damages had to show that the infringement of his patent was…
-
Federal Circuit Reinforces PTAB’s Authority to Institute Trial on Selected Claims in Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Appeal
Newcomers to post-grant proceedings are often surprised by the PTAB’s claim-by-claim approach to patent challenges under the America Invents Act. When reporting statistics about IPRs, commentators tend to ignore these considerations: First, an IPR petition can be drafted to challenge all or some of the claims of a patent. So the set of challenged claims can be less…
-
Are Your Patent Procurement Guidelines Outdated?
I saw a bumper sticker that said: “Change is inevitable, but growth is optional.” This is true in many facets of life, and it is true for patent practice. The changes of the past few years are numerous and far-reaching. Is your patent portfolio strategy growing with these changes? One Simple Exercise If you are…
-
In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Affirms Board Finding of Unpatentability in First IPR
The Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination of the Board in the first inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Garmin petitioned for IPR of claims 10, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 owned by Cuozzo Speed Technologies. The Board found these claims obvious and denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend the…
-
SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit
In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350. I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business method patent review conducted by the Patent Office under the America Invents Act. (SAP v.…
-
Patent Office Board Takes a Bite out of Apple’s IPR Challenge of VirnetX Patents
In mid-2013 Apple filed seven inter partes review petitions to challenge four VirnetX patents. Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) denied all seven inter partes review (IPR) petitions. This outcome demonstrates the Board’s current interpretation of the one-year bar applied in IPR proceedings and its position on joinder of petitions. Apple’s Interpretation of the…
-
Joint Motions to Terminate Patent Reviews Late in Trial Proceedings
One of the advantages of patent reviews under the America Invents Act is that the parties may settle before completion of the proceedings and file a joint motion to terminate these proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may consider the joint motion and terminate the entire proceeding. It has done so…