IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in October 2015

Authors: Daniel F. Klodowski, Elliot C. Cook, David C. Seastrunk
Editor: Aaron Parker

In the 44 Final Written Decisions issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in October, the Board cancelled 469 (79.49%) of the instituted claims and declined to cancel 118 (20%) of the instituted claims.  A patent owner conceded 3 (0.51%) of the instituted claims by filing a disclaimer.

PTAB-STATS-Claim-and-Case-Disposition-IPR-Claim-October-Stats Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Surfs up: Is the Federal Circuit Using Rule 36 to Rubber-Stamp the PTAB’s Decisions in IPRs?

Authors: Justin A. Hendrix and Jacob A. Schroeder
Editor: Aaron Gleaton Clay

One practice the Federal Circuit has used so far to handle the “tsunami” of appeals from IPR decisions is consolidation, which allows the Court to combine related appeals that raise similar issues. Another practice the Court has used—Rule 36 judgments after oral argument—reduces the burden imposed by issuing written decisions. An analysis of whether the Court is using Rule 36 as an easy way to rubber stamp the majority of appeals from IPR decisions can be found on Finnegan’s Federal Circuit IP Blog.


Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Federal Circuit Questions PTAB’s “Redundancy” Practice in Shaw Industries Hearing

Author: James Stein
Editor: Jason Stach

Although there are no formal limits on the number of grounds a petition may raise, the PTAB often eliminates alternative grounds challenging the same patent claims as “redundant,” even if the redundant grounds would establish unpatentability. See, e.g., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2012). The PTAB cites its statutory 12-month deadline for completing proceedings as making it necessary to eliminate redundant grounds and run trials efficiently. On November 2, 2015, the Court of the Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard a case that may change the PTAB’s redundancy practice. Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys’s, Inc., Nos. 15-1116, -1119 (Fed. Cir.). Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,