IPR and CBM Final Written Decisions Predominantly Fall Within Electrical and Mechanical Technology Centers

Authors: Daniel F. Klodowski, Jonathan R.K. Stroud
Editor: Aaron L. Parker

The PTAB continues to be a highly popular venue for patent validity challenges, with final written decisions in post-grant proceedings being largely concentrated in the fields of electrical and mechanical engineering. This suggests a consistent trend in the types of technologies frequently challenged before the Board.

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share
Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Death Comes in Threes: Board Invalidates a Trio of Triple Slow Cooker Design Patents

Author: Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Editor: Kathleen A. Daley

The Board issued Final Written Decisions in the second, third, and fourth IPRs involving design patents, in Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc., IPR2013-00500, Paper 33 (Feb. 9, 2015); IPR2013-00501, Paper 32; IPR2013-00580, Paper 31. To date, only ten IPRs have been filed involving design patents. With these latest decisions, four patents have been found unpatentable, four IPRs were not instituted, and two are pending a decision on institution.



Continue reading

Bookmark and Share
Tagged , , , , ,

Divided Federal Circuit Panel Upholds Non-Appealable Nature of PTAB Institution Decisions (Part II)

Author: Troy E. Grabow
Editor: Anthony A. Hartmann

In part I, we provided an overview of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in In Re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. In part II, we focus on the opinion’s analysis of the non-appealability of PTAB institution decisions.

Cuozzo argued that the PTO improperly instituted IPR on two claims when it relied on prior art not identified in the Petition as applicable to those claims (but applicable to a dependent claim). However, the majority sided with the PTO, finding that the institution decision should not be reviewed on appeal.

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,