Category: PTAB Updates

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 , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , ,

Recent PTAB Decisions Further Illuminate Denial of Review Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(D)

Authors: Kevin J. Spinella
Editor: Aaron J. Capron

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied grounds in petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the prior art and arguments relied on in the petitions were substantially similar to those presented during prosecution of the patents at issue.

For example, in Kayak Software Corp. v. IBM Corp. CBM2016-0075, Paper 16 (Dec. 15, 2016), the PTAB declined to institute a covered business method (CBM) petition under § 325(d).

In their Petition, the Petitioners used the exact combination of references that had been applied by the USPTO Examiner. The Petitioners also introduced a new reference not previously cited during prosecution as an additional means to demonstrate the unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 7,072,849. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , ,