In Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit found that the appointment of PTAB judges violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because they are principal officers that were not appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Appointments Clause of Article II provides: [The […]
In what situations will the dismissal of a complaint not start the clock on the one-year time bar for IPRs? As long as the complaint was served, the Federal Circuit’s answer–based on two recent cases–may be “none.” In August, the Federal Circuit decided Click-to-Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., which held that a voluntary dismissal without […]
Alternative claim constructions are often presented in IPR proceedings. Addressing alternative constructions in the final written decision may help the PTAB avoid reversals on appeal. That was the case in Arendi v. Google, where the Federal Circuit rejected the PTAB’s primary claim construction but affirmed based on an alternative claim construction discussed in the decision. In […]
Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board decision of adverse judgment against a Patent Owner based on the pre-institution disclaimer of challenged claims. In IPR2016-00917, Arthrex (Patent Owner) filed a preliminary response requesting denial of the petition based on the disclaimer of all challenged claims and specifically stating that it was not requesting adverse judgment. In […]
In Securus Techs. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., the Federal Circuit rejected a patent owner’s argument that the PTAB improperly considered new arguments raised in the petitioner’s reply brief, in part because the patent owner did not object during the IPR proceeding. In Securus, the Federal Circuit reviewed a pair of final written decisions involving U.S. Patent […]
In In re: NuVasive, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s final written decision in IPR2013-0508 for further proceedings. At issue was the Board’s reliance on a prior art figure that was first raised in petitioner’s reply and which the Board did not permit the patent owner to address in the preceding. In […]
In Husky Injection Molding Sys. v. Athena Automation Ltd., a split panel of the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent owner’s appeal of the PTAB’s final written decision in an IPR where patent owner asserted that institution should have been denied based on assignor estoppel. The majority’s opinion cites the Supreme Court’s Cuozzo decision as setting up […]
In WiFi v Broadcom, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Supreme Court decision in Cuozzo did not overrule the prohibition on appellate review of decisions relating to institution of IPR proceedings. Although Cuozzo left open the possibility that certain “shenanigans” (e.g., notice failures that create due process problems) might be reviewable, the Federal Circuit rejected […]
The Federal Circuit continues to show interest in the amendment process for PTAB proceedings. In addition to accepting In re Aqua Products for en banc review of the current standards for amending claims in PTAB proceedings, last week the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Veritas Tech. v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, […]
In a decision on remand issued on August 15, 2016, a PTAB panel again found patentable claims 1-30 of Verinata Health’s U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430, directed to methods for determining the presence or absence of fetal aneuploidy in a fetus. This time, the PTAB specifically addressed the applicability of an exhibit to the state of the art, responding […]