Document(s) published by this organization: 33
Show: results per page
|PTAB Clarifies the Service Provision of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)|
John Holley; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
December 10, 2014, previously published on November 21, 2014In a recent Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, patent owner Click-To-Call Technologies LP failed in its attempt to prevent the institution of an IPR of U.S. Patent No. 5,818,836 sought by petitioner YP Interactive LLC. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bars a petitioner from pursuing an IPR of a certain...
|Federal Circuit Reverses District Court and Grants Motion to Stay in view of CBM Institution|
John M. Bird; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
December 10, 2014, previously published on November 24, 2014In Verstata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 2014-4682 (November 20, 2014), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Delaware’s denial of a motion to stay the district court case during a transitional Covered Business Method (CBM) Review. The decision...
|Carefully “Stitching” Together a Declaration Can Help Increase the Odds of Success During IPR Proceedings|
Andrew J. Taska; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
November 14, 2014, previously published on October 28, 2014Declarations can play a critical role in an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceeding. To date, most IPR petitions filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) have included a supporting declaration. Further, the PTAB often relies heavily on such declarations in...
|PTAB Finds Non-Excluded Embodiments Included or Enabled|
Grant M. Ford; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
November 14, 2014, previously published on October 31, 2014In two related inter partes review final written decisions, the PTAB relied on extrinsic evidence to invalidate patent claims. In Mobotix Corp. v. e-Watch, Inc., Petitioner Mobotix Corp. challenged the validity Patent Owner E-Watch, Inc.’s U.S. patents 7,023,913 and 7,733,371, related to...
|The Admissibility and Relevance of Wikipedia Articles as Evidence in Post-Grant Patent Proceedings|
Cyril K. Chan; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
November 14, 2014, previously published on October 21, 2014In the final decisions issued on September 18, 2014 for two related proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board considered motions to exclude evidence involving webpage printout documents from Wikipedia and Webopedia. See SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi Arunachalam (CBM2013-00013, Paper No. 61, pp....
|Live Testimony: Can The Testimony Help You?|
David P. Emery; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
November 14, 2014, previously published on October 14, 2014In an Inter Partes Review proceeding, patent owner Escort, Inc., who was permitted to provide live testimony during the oral hearing, lost its bid to antedate the only two references relied on by petitioner K-40 Electronics, LLC. K-40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort, Inc. (IPR2013-00203, Paper No. 45,...
|The PTAB Will Not Play Archeologist with the Record to Ascertain Invalidity|
Grant Shackelford; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
November 14, 2014, previously published on November 5, 2014The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently entered final written decisions in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., IPR 2013-00276, Paper No. 43 (“Ariosa”) and Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. IPR2013-00290, Paper No. 45 (“Athena”)...
|Broadest Reasonable Interpretation vs. Ordinary and Customary Meaning: - Challenges Introduced by Applying Different Claim Construction Standards at the PTAB and District Courts|
Grant Ford; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
September 25, 2014, previously published on September 11, 2014 Inter Partes Review (IPR) is quickly becoming a popular means to challenge the validity of issued patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). According to USPTO statistics, 1,700 petitions for IPR were filed between September 2012 and...
|Amending Claims in IPR or Reexam? The Apparent Clash between PTAB and CRU|
Azy Sophia Kokabi; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
September 25, 2014, previously published on September 15, 2014 The Central Reexamination Unit (“CRU”) appears to be at odds with the Board of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) with respect to a Patent Owner’s ability to amend or add claims in an ex parte reexamination proceeding filed during an inter partes review...
|Motion for Additional Discovery: Attacking Third Party Testimony|
David P. Emery; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
September 25, 2014, previously published on September 9, 2014 Recently, in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, patent owner Honeywell International Inc., failed in its attempt to obtain additional discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc. (IPR2013-00576, Paper No. 36, September 5,...