by Matthew Johnson | Jul 10, 2024 | Joinder, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Time Limits, Trial Institution
By Ariana Tsanas*, Matt Johnson, and Daniel Sloan – On May 6th, 2024, the PTAB declined Ubiquiti Inc.’s (“Petitioner’s”) request to institute inter partes review. Ubiquiti Inc. v. XR Communications LLC D/B/A Vivato Tech., IPR2024-00148, Paper 12 (May 6, 2024). ...
by Tom Ritchie | Jul 2, 2024 | PTAB News, Trial Institution
By Tom Ritchie – The institution rate for post-grant petitions in FY 2024 through the end of April 2024 (the period from Oct. 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024) stands at 66% (427 instituted, 230 denied). This rate remains flat compared to the previous two fiscal...
by Matthew Johnson | Jun 28, 2024 | District Court, Estoppel, Federal Circuit, PTAB News
By Sabrina Bellantoni and Matt Johnson – Recently, District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly in the Western District of Washington granted Ironburg Inventions Ltd.’s (“Ironburg”) motion for inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppelpursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which...
by David Maiorana | Jun 26, 2024 | PTAB News, Trial Institution
By David Linden and Dave Maiorana – On October 27, 2023, Inergy Technology, Inc. (“Inergy”) filed concurrent petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,629,634 (“the ’634 Patent”) (“IPR093”) and 7,812,409 (“the ’409 Patent”) (“IPR094”), each...
by Matthew Johnson | Jun 21, 2024 | Preliminary Responses, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Dave Cochran and Daniel Sloan – On April 25, 2024, the PTAB denied Masimo Corporation’s (“Petitioner’s”) second petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) against U.S. Patent No. 10,076,257 (the “’257 patent”). Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., IPR2024-00071, Paper...
by Matthew Johnson | Jun 4, 2024 | Prior Art Issues, PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics, Trial Institution
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson – Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. In certain circumstances, the PTAB will discretionarily deny a petition because another petition challenging the same patent was...