Home | Patent Trial and Appeal Board Digest

Loading data, please wait...

Recent Decisions (click on a decision to view the annotation)

Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

After remand, the Board denied the Parties' request for additional briefing, determined that it would re-evaluate the existing record solely to correct the specific errors identified by the Federal Circuit, and refused consideration of new issues.

Microsoft Corp. v. Smart Skins LLC

Board held that Patent Owner was permitted to videotape the deposition of Petitioner's declarant provided that the Patent Owner paid the costs associated with videotaping.

Harvest Trading Group, Inc. v. Vireo Systems, Inc.

Board denied a patent co-owner's motion to act to the exclusion of another co-owner, because testimony by the excluded co-owner failed to demonstrate inability or refusal to participate in the proceeding.

Ex Parte CSB-System International, Inc.

Federal Circuit held when a patent expires during reexamination the Board should apply the Phillips claim construction standard rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation standard--even if the examiner applied a different standard.

Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.

In a multi-petition case, Board granted Patent Owner's motion limiting single expert deposition to 14 hours and denied Petitioner's motion seeking to limit expert deposition to 10 hours.

CaptionCall, L.L.C., v. UltraTec, Inc.

The Board granted Patent Owner's motion to correct citation errors in the Patent Owner Response under the Board's general power to determine the course of the proceeding under 37 C.F.R. section 42.5(a).

Innopharma Licensing, Inc. et al. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al.

The Board found petitioner failed to show claims were obvious because Patent Owner offered secondary considerations of nonobviousness indicating unexpected results, commercial success and industry acclaim for products embodying the claimed invention.

Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO LLC

Board stayed Patent Owner's Petition to Accept an Unintentionally Delayed Priority Claim because Patent Owner had not informed the Board of the petition or asked Board's permission to file the petition.

Seadrill Americas, Inc. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

Board declined to waive word count limit because Patent Owner failed to present suitably unusual circumstances to justify a waiver.

David O.B.A. Adebimpe v. The Johns Hopkins University

Board determined the patent was not subject to post-grant review because the effective filing date was before March 16, 2013, even though the claims were amended after that date.

Microsoft Corporation v. Bradium Technologies LLC

Board instituted a second IPR petition, after denying a first IPR petition, over Patent Owner's request for a discretionary denial because Petitioner filed the second IPR petition within the one-year statutory bar period.

About the Editors

Analysis

Executive Editors:

Wayne Stacy Orion Armon

Contributing Editors:

Resources