| Sign Up
Topics

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

PTAB Digest

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

District Court granted Defendant's motion to assert inequitable conduct based on Plaintiff's failure to disclose IPR of related patent in reexaminations of patents-in-suit.
PTAB Digest

Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC

Board denied Patent Owner's motion for routine discovery regarding Petitioner's non-infringement allegations despite Patent Owner's arguments that Petitioner's non-infringement allegations were inconsistent with its invalidity position.
PTAB Digest

Apple Inc. v. E-Watch, Inc.

The Board held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine procedural matters not central to the substantive merit of patentability.
PTAB Digest

Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Technology LLC

Board denied institution on petition for failure to name a real party in interest, noting that the determination is made based on the IPR proceeding not behavior in district court.
PTAB Digest

General Electric Company v. TransData, Inc.

Board denied IPR petition because Petitioner had the "opportunity to control" another party's defense in an earlier lawsuit involving the same patent.
PTAB Digest

Chums, Inc., and Croakies, Inc. v. Cablz, Inc.

Board summarized its standard for amendment as of April 2015.
PTAB Digest

General Electric Company v. TransData, Inc.

Board rejected Petitioner's argument that privity only at the time of the IPR petition was relevant to determining real parties in interest.
PTAB Digest

Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd, and North America Seoul Semiconductor Inc. v. Enplas Corporation

Board denied Petitioner's motion to file video excerpts of deposition testimony from related IPR because they would not help in reaching final determination.
PTAB Digest

Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Game Controller Technology LLC

Board denied Patent Owner's motion to terminate for failure to name all real parties in interest because Patent Owner did not (1) raise the issue timely or (2) show failure to name all real parties in interest.
PTAB Digest

Hawaiian Telcom, Inc. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.

Board found that claim was not directed to a technological innovation because (1) it did not recite any novel elements and (2) it was not directed to solving a technological problem.

About the Editors

Analysis

Search Clear Close