Petition Denied for Lacking Section 112(f) Construction and Fintiv
By Luke Cipolla and Dave Maiorana - On March 7, 2024, the PTAB denied institution in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, IPR2023-01299, Paper 15 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2024) (“Decision”). The PTAB denied institution on two separate grounds: (1) the...
Director Review: PTAB Must Articulate Bases for Section 325(d) Denial
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. §325(d)....
PTAB Terminates Institution in Netflix v. ???
By Daniel Sloan and Matt Johnson - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently dismissed and terminated inter partes review challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ’167 patent”). Netflix, Inc. v. Owner, IPR2022-01568, Paper 29 (PTAB March 18,...
Claim Construction Dispositive In Patentability Determination
By Sue Gerber and Matt Johnson - It goes without saying that claim construction is an important issue, but the PTAB’s recent decision in Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, IPR2020-00558, Paper 66 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2024), shows not only that reasonable minds can differ about the...
PTAB Proposes Permanent MTA Pilot Program Rules
By Christian Roberts, and Daniel Sloan, and Matt Johnson - On March 4, 2024, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPR”) regarding Motion To Amend (“MTA”) Practice...