by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2018 | Motions Practice
By: Sean Benevento[1], Mike Lavine, and Matt Johnson After IPR institution, a party may file a motion to submit supplemental information so long as (1) the party requests authorization to file the motion within a month of the date the trial was instituted, and (2) the...
by Matthew Johnson | May 23, 2018 | CBMs, Estoppel, Motions Practice, PTAB Trial Basics
By: Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson We recently reported some early observations about possible trends at the PTAB in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu. See Observations: Three Weeks After Supreme Court’s SAS Institute Decision. On...
by Matthew Johnson | May 4, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics
By: Josh Nightingale and Matt Johnson On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, holding that a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less all claims challenged in the...
by Matthew Johnson | Apr 26, 2018 | PTAB News
By: Matt Johnson, Greg Castanias, Gasper LaRosa, and Rich Graham Rumors of the PTAB’s demise were greatly exaggerated, it turns out. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday that Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) violate neither Article III nor the Seventh...
by Matthew Johnson | Mar 27, 2018 | Amendment Practice, PTAB Trial Basics
By: Josh Nightingale and Matthew Johnson In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable. The decision, issued on...