Skip to main content

IPRs & Other Post Grant Proceedings

Viewpoints

Filter by:

IP Cases to Watch in 2017

January 12, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller

The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least different.
The Federal Circuit reversed the invalidation of two patents directed to providing security for credit card purchases in an opinion released earlier today.  The patents at issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,840,486 and 8,036,988, disclose methods for effecting secure credit-card purchases by minimizing merchant access to credit card numbers.

USPTO Proposes Fee Increases for FY 2017

December 21, 2016 | Blog | By Mark Pino, John Forrest

The USPTO has published its notice of proposed rulemaking for the FY 2017 patent fee schedule in the Federal Register. The USPTO proposes fee increases to recover its estimated costs for patent operations and achieve its strategic goals of optimizing patent quality and timeliness and increasing international efforts to improve IP policy, protection, and enforcement.

Federal Circuit Corrects the Board’s “Too Exacting” Diligence Standard

November 21, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Vincent Ferraro

On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, requiring a “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence,” was too exacting and in conflict with Federal Circuit precedent.
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same portions to hold the claims unpatentable.

Patent-Agent Privilege and the USPTO’s Proposed New Rule

November 1, 2016 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Matthew Galica, Anthony Faillaci

Several recent court decisions have shed light on the patent agent privilege, and now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking to weigh-in on the issue.
The Federal Circuit reaffirmed last week that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision to discontinue inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is not reviewable on appeal.

Kyle Bass’ First IPR Win At The PTAB

October 28, 2016 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

Since Kyle Bass founded Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (CFAD) to challenge pharmaceutical patents, CFAD has filed numerous petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office) seeking to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to invalidate a number of pharmaceutical patents, including three patents owned by Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as previously discussed at Global IP Matters.

CAFC's Husky Decision Makes Sledding Tougher for Patent Owners in PTAB Appeals

September 30, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Patrick Driscoll

The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”).

The Specter of Alice Looms Large Even in PGRs

August 15, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Lily Zhang

On August 3, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a post-grant review decision that bears one striking similarity to its previous post-grant review decisions, namely invalidation of claims under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, further bolstering the salience of patent ineligibility challenges in post-grant proceedings.

Supreme Court Decides Two Key Aspects of IPR in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

June 30, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Gurneet Singh, Catherine Xu

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is final and non-appealable, thereby not being subject to judicial review, and (2) it is appropriate for the Board to construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, rather than their plain and ordinary meaning as in district court litigation.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition filed by Merck & Cie for rehearing en banc of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding several Merck patents invalid as obvious.
Following the filing of a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking to initiate either an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Covered Business Method (CBM) Review, the patent owner may file a preliminary response addressing the arguments in the petition and also potentially raising arguments regarding statutory bars that may prevent the IPR or CBM proceeding from being initiated.

Kyle Bass’ Another Three IPRs: Targeting Anacor

March 2, 2016 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

Kyle Bass continues to make waves throughout the pharmaceutical industry. Since Bass founded Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (“CFAD”) to challenge pharmaceutical patents, CFAD has filed over three dozen petitions as of this date with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ( “PTAB”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ( “Office”) seeking to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings to invalidate a number of pharmaceutical patents.

USPTO “Forecloses” on Mortgage Processing Patent under Alice

February 25, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller

Patent owners continue to face an uphill battle at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  According to U.S. Patent Office statistics as of December 31, 2015, a majority (72%) of the 529 Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) proceeding to trial and receiving Final Written Decisions ended in all examined claims being invalidated. 
In Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, a 2-1 panel split of the Federal Circuit held that neither the American Invents Act (“AIA”) nor the Constitution precludes the same panel of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) from both deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) of a challenged U.S. Patent and making the final patentability determination in that IPR.
On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: