by Josh Nightingale | Apr 5, 2024 | 325(d) issues, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Ashvi Patel and Josh Nightingale – Director Vidal recently vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to deny institution of three petitions for inter partes review (IPR), citing insufficient explanation for denial under 35 U.S.C....
by Josh Nightingale | Jan 4, 2024 | 325(d) issues, Trial Institution
By Connor Scholes, Ashvi Patel, and Josh Nightingale – On November 6, 2023, the PTAB issued an decision instituting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 B2 (“the ’009 patent”) in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,...
by Matthew Johnson | Oct 10, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Daniel Sloan and Matt Johnson – On August 24, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal vacated a PTAB decision denying institution of inter partes review in Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. and remanded the case for further proceedings....
by Geoffrey Gavin | Sep 26, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Matt Modderman, Asvhi Patel, Geoffrey Gavin – In Sandoz Inc. v. Acerta Pharma B.V. (IPR2023-00478), a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) panel denied IPR institution where the asserted prior art was cumulative of that considered during prosecution. This...
by Matthew Johnson | Sep 11, 2023 | 325(d) issues, PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Matt Johnson and Jack Graves— The PTAB recently declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter partes review after a patent owner unsuccessfully argued that the petition relied on substantially the same prior art as that which the Office had previously...
by Matthew Johnson | Aug 18, 2023 | 325(d) issues, Prior Art Issues, PTAB News
By Mike Lavine, Aska Fujimori-Smith,* Jetta Cook, and Matt Johnson – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) recently denied inter partes review (IPR) of an electrocardiography monitor patent under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), finding that the same or...
