-
PTAB Institution Rate Continues To Lag Behind 2014 Rate, Highlighting Need For Expert Reports to Adequately Support Petition
Monday, August 1, 2016Data released by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the Fiscal Year 2016 reveals that the PTAB is granting petitions to review at a rate similar to FY 2015, and significantly below the higher rate in FY 2014. Thus far in FY 2016, the Board has denied instituting trial on about 33% [...]
-
PTAB Invalidates Two Livestock Patents in First PGR Decisions
Thursday, June 30, 2016On June 13, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) issued two post-grant review (PGR) decisions invalidating two livestock valuation patents for being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). These are [...]
-
PTAB Decision Vacated and Remanded for Changing Claim Construction “Midstream”
Monday, June 13, 2016Even though the Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s new claim construction in the final written decision, the Court found that the Board errored by adopting a new construction for a term it had construed differently in its institution decision. (see SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC (Fed. Cir. June 10, [...]
-
In re Aqua Products, Inc.: Federal Circuit Continues To Uphold PTAB Limits on Motions To Amend
Tuesday, May 3, 2016Although the America Invents Act permits patent owners to file motions to amend claims in a patent under review, see e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 316(d), patentees generally have been unsuccessful in seeking amendments. The USPTO has promulgated rules that place squarely on the patent owner the burden of demonstrating that proposed substitute claims are patentable over [...]
-
PTAB Remains Consistent from Institution to Final Decision in First Group of IPRs Decided Together
Wednesday, February 24, 2016On February 10, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a group of four final written decisions to inter partes review (IPR) trial proceedings involving Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC (“IVM”) and Xilinx, Inc. (“Xilinx”). IVM filed four IPR petitions challenging the patentability of claims in four patents owned by Xilinx. The four final [...]
