Tag Archives: Inter Partes Review

The Service Date of a Patent Infringement Complaint Begins the One Year Clock for Filing an Inter Partes Review Petition

In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corporation, No.2015-1242 (en banc), the Federal Circuit has overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s longstanding interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)’s time bar for inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions, finding that the service of any civil complaint for patent infringement— even if later dismissed—starts the clock on the statute’s one-year … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Shuts the Door on Use of Tribal Immunity in IPRs

The Federal Circuit has rejected Allergan’s ploy to shield its Restasis patents from the scrutiny of inter partes review by assigning them to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, finding that tribal immunity does not apply in such proceedings.  The case is Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Allergan, Inc., v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1638, … Continue Reading

The USPTO Proposes to Interpret Claims in Post-Grant Proceedings in the Same Way as the Federal Courts, and to Consider Prior Claim Constructions by Courts

With IPRs here to stay, the USPTO is proposing to drop its BRI standard and interpret claims under the same standards as used by federal courts.  Specifically, the USPTO has proposed to change the standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business method patent proceedings conducted by the PTAB … Continue Reading

Illinois District Court Reaffirms Broader Interpretation Of IPR-Estoppel

As we previously reported (here), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in an August 2017 decision in Oil Dri Corp. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 1-15-cv-01067 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2017) joined the seeming trend of courts interpreting estoppel against patent challengers in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings more broadly … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Rejects Requirement That Patent Owners Have the Burden to Prove the Patentability of Amended Claims Proffered During Inter Partes Review Proceedings

The Federal Circuit has issued its long-awaited ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, with the majority of the en banc court agreeing that the requirement by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that patent owners have the burden to prove the patentability of amended claims proffered during inter partes review (IPR) … Continue Reading

Illinois District Court Continues Trend Toward Broader Interpretation of IPR-Estoppel

The America Invents Act of 2011, which ushered in a new regime for post-grant patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), provides that any patent challenger initiating an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the PTO “may not assert” an invalidity ground in a patent case in U.S. district court or in … Continue Reading

Are Inter Partes Reviews “Quintessential” Agency Adjudications?

A superlative or excessive statement is often a dead give-away that the statement may not be true.  In deciding whether the America Invents Act’s inter partes review provisions violate Article III of the Constitution of the United States, the Federal Circuit in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 815 F.3d 1284, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015) … Continue Reading

Why Some State-Funded Institutions May Not Be Subject to Inter Partes Review

On January 25, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an order dismissing three separate Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.  The doctrine of sovereign immunity emanates from the Eleventh Amendment, and acts to immunize states from civil suit.  In Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation … Continue Reading

Is the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claim Terms, as Applied in Inter Partes Review, Converging on the Standard Applied in Litigation?

This past summer, the Supreme Court settled the debate about the standard to be applied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in construing patent claims – finding its use of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the approach used by the US patent office for the past century, was proper.1 Its decision left in … Continue Reading
LexBlog