Cases

Loading data, please wait...

Topics

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

PTAB Digest

David’s Bridal, Inc. v. Jenny Yoo Collection, Inc.

The Board found that a design divisional patent had a pre-AIA effective filing date and was thus ineligible for PGR despite including new figures, because the priority application supported the challenged claim.
PTAB Digest

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

The Federal Circuit remanded the Board's obviousness finding because the Board had not explained that the prior art disclosed all the claim elements or how or why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the prior art.
PTAB Digest

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp.

On remand, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file a supplement to its original motion to amend to correct a computer-readable medium claim that was defective because the preamble failed to include "non-transitory."
PTAB Digest

Apple, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.

The Board held that a reference was prior art because a preponderance of evidence showed that it was indexed by title and subject matter before the priority date of the challenged claims.
PTAB Digest

Ex Parte Jennifer Schweickert

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board's obviousness findings because the Board had not adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of the prior art.
PTAB Digest

Covidien LP v. University Florida Research Foundation Incorporated

The Board held that the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defense can be raised in IPR proceedings by Patent Owners that are state entities.
PTAB Digest

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

District court held that estoppel applied even though the PTAB disposed of IPR on evidentiary grounds because the PTAB issued a final written decision addressing the merits.
PTAB Digest

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

Applying Shaw, the District Court held that statutory estoppel bars the petitioner, real party-in-interest, and privy from asserting invalidity grounds raised, or that reasonably could have been raised, during IPRs of the patents-in-suit.
PTAB Digest

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

District court foud that invalidity grounds that weren't instituted by the PTAB were not estopped, but found estopped invalidity grounds that were a subset of those considered by the PTAB.
PTAB Digest

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

District court held that estoppel applied to a party that bought the petitioner after IPR institution because acquirer was aware of the IPR during acquisition and because it was named a real-party-in-interest to the IPR.

About the Editors

Analysis

Search Clear Close