Category: Post-Grant Proceedings

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Final Written Decision Must Address Every Challenged Claim in an IPR Petition

Authors: James D. Stein 
Editor: Jason E. Stach

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee, 825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The question presented is whether the PTAB must issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner in an IPR petition or only as to some of the challenged claims. For more, see our coverage on Finnegan’s Federal Circuit IP Blog.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Generic Claim Terms and Broad Specification Led to No CBM Review

Author: Jonathan J. Fagan
Editor: Aaron J. Capron

In Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp., CBM2016-00099, Paper 13 (Feb. 27, 2017), the Board refused to institute a covered business method (CBM) review because the Petitioner failed to show that the patent at issue qualified to be a covered business method patent.

In this case, the patent at issue claimed a process for validating a registrant on a website, giving the registrant access to a “service,” and then sending the registration a notification upon the occurrence of a predetermined “notification event.” The specification disclosed both financial (e.g., a notification for a bank account withdrawal) and nonfinancial (e.g., news alerts sent to a phone) embodiments. Continue reading

Tagged ,

Wi-Fi One’s Supplemental Brief Urges En Banc Federal Circuit to Permit Appellate Review of PTAB Time-Bar Decisions

Authors: Robert K. High III
Editor: James D. Stein

Wi-Fi One has submitted its supplemental briefing in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Nos. 2015-1944, -1945, -1946, urging the en banc court to overturn its decision in Achates Reference Publishing Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015), holding that that the PTAB’s decision regarding the timeliness of an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is unreviewable. In Achates, the Federal Circuit interpreted § 314(d), which makes the decision whether to institute “final and nonappealable,” as precluding this review. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,