| Sign Up
Topics

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

PTAB Digest Precedential

Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.

Federal Circuit reversed Delaware district court decision to deny motion to stay pending CBM after analyzing the facts under AIA § 18(b)(1).
PTAB Digest

Carl Zeiss SMT GMBH v. Nikon Corporation

Board rejected proposed definition of a persona of ordinary skill in the art as unduly narrow in light of the claims and concluded that expert qualified as a person of ordinary skill under broader definition.
PTAB Digest

E*Trade Financial Corporation v. Droplets, Inc.

Board denied petition for CBM because it offered only conclusory arguments concerning the technological invention exception. 
PTAB Digest

Baxter Healthcare Corp; Apatech, Inc. v. Millenium Biologix, LLC

Board denied request for rehearing of final written decision and refused to consider late-presented experimental evidence included in petitioner's reply that could have been submitted with original petition.
PTAB Digest

MotivePower, Inc. v. Cutsforth, Inc.

Board held that Patent Owner failed to show commercial success because it did not show its market share or nexus between the claims and sales.
PTAB Digest

C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc.

Board declined to consider evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness because it was presented in the form of new testimonial evidence created after the filing date of the petition for inter partes review.
PTAB Digest

Target Corporation v. Destination Maternity Corporation

Board denied Target's motion to join a post-bar date petition with another of its earlier filed petitions holding that only another party, not another petition, can be joined.
PTAB Digest

Canon, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, LLC

Board cited redundancy in proposed grounds as justification for refusing to institute grounds included in three separate petitions filed by the same petitioner
PTAB Digest

Osram Sylvania Inc. v. Jam Strait, Inc.

Board held that preamble phrase "adapted for" limited claim scope because the specification made clear that the claimed invention was specifically adapted for a particular application.
PTAB Digest

Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.

Board declined to find disavowal because statements in specification were not clear and unequivocal.

About the Editors

Analysis

Search Clear Close