Resources

    Blog

    November 30, 2017
    On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court Justices posed many interesting questions to attorneys representing the parties involved in two underlying Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and the federal respondents in these two cases, which will impact the future of IPRs significantly.  Of the two cases, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (16-612) has...
    October 25, 2017
    General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha. (IPR2016-01357 through IPR2016-01361; “Decision”) In an expanded panel where General Plastics sought reversal of multiple decisions that denied instituting follow-on petitions, the PTAB confirmed these decisions were proper based on the factors established in NVIDIA.  This decision has been added to the PTAB’s list of precedential...
    October 10, 2017
    In Aqua Products, Inc., v. Matal, 2015-1177, Oct. 4, 2017, the en banc Federal Circuit cut against the grain of current PTAB proceeding and held that the petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding has the burden to prove unpatentability for amended claims. The patent owner in a patent office trial may file one motion...
    September 01, 2017
    Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. (Federal Circuit 2016-232, August 22, 2017) By David Emery In a concurring opinion by Judge Timothy Dyk (joined by Judge Wallach), Judge Dyk expressed that there are “serious questions as to the Board’s (and Director’s) interpretation of the relevant statutes and current practices” when expanding...
    July 05, 2017
    Federal Circuit No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017) In Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 2016-1599, May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be considered for claim construction and relied upon to...
    June 15, 2017
    On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the America Invents Act’s provisions on inter partes review (IPR) violate the Seventh Amendment right to jury by extinguishing patent claims through a non-Article III court. Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC.1 The USPTO’s authority to decide IPRs does...
    April 18, 2017
    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently denied Cover Business Method (CBM) review of an Internet advertising display patent assigned to KlausTech. The petitioner, Google, argued that the claim limitation “retaining … a record of the browser identity” should be construed as financial in nature because the specification describes determining compensation for publisher websites and...
    4/11/2017
    미국에서 특허 침해의 의심을 받는 당사자가 이를 다툴 수 있는 방법에는 크게 두 가지가 있습니다. 하나는 연방법원에서 해당 특허가 무효이기 때문에 효력이 없다고 주장하거나 설령 특허가 유효하다고 할지라도 그 특허에 대한 침해행위를 하지 않았음을 입증하는 것이고, 또 한 가지는 특허청의 심판기관인 PTAB(Patent Trial and Appeal Board)에서 Inter Partes Review(IPR)를 통해...
    4/4/2017
    연 평균 약 80건의 상고사건을 심리하는 미국 연방대법원(이하 “대법원”)이 2주 연속 특허관련 사건의 Oral Hearing을 하는 것은 아주 드물다고 볼 수 있습니다.  그런데 대법원은 3월 21일에 있었던 특허소진(特許消盡: Patent Exhaustion)에 관한 Lexmark v. Impression 케이스에 이어, 지난 주 월요일(3월 27일)에 미국특허소송에 커다란 파급력을 지닌 또 다른 사건의 Oral Hearing을 열었습니다. ...
    January 27, 2017
    In Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001, (PTAB March 5, 2013), the Board set forth five factors—commonly referred to as the Garmin factors—for determining whether “additional discovery” will be granted to a party during a proceeding before the Board, such as an inter partes review (IPR) covered business method review (CBM) or...