IPR Estoppel in Action
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...
PTAB Institutes IPR on Compelling Merits, Despite Other Fintiv Factors Favoring Denial
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...
Road Mapping Leads to Dead End
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 7...
LKQ v. GM: PTAB and Examiner Guidance on Design Patent Obviousness from USPTO
By John Evans, Jesse Wynn, and Erin Bies* - Those following this blog knew change was coming to design patent obviousness in the LKQ v. GM decision by the en banc Federal Circuit. In its May 21, 2024 decision, the court overruled the long-standing Rosen-Durling test...
Shifting Burden Dooms Patent Owner
By Hailey Stewart,* Evan Tassis and Matt Johnson - In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB declared claims of a patent unpatentable after finding the patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date of the anticipatory reference in Platinum Optics Technology, Inc....