Tag Archive for inter partes review

New Federal Circuit Appeal Claims PTAB Unconstitutional Because Of Fee Funding—But Ignores The Patent Examination Process

In a recently filed brief in the Federal Circuit case New Vision Gaming v. SG Gaming, the appellant argues that the PTAB is unconstitutional because the fees charged for the proceeding create a bias towards institution.  Specifically, New Vision Gaming claims that PTAB judges stand to benefit from institution and therefore it’s a violation of…

Meet the Western District of Texas—NPEs Certainly Have

For years, the Eastern District of Texas was the favored stomping ground for patent trolls.  Short times from filing to trial, shorter trials, judges with local rules friendly to patent plaintiffs, and a jury pool that tended to be friendly to plaintiffs all contributed to this.  It probably didn’t hurt that Eastern District judges were…

Thryv, the PTAB, and the APA

April’s Thryv decision by the Supreme Court clarified the nonappealability of institution decisions in inter partes review (IPR).  But by placing an absolute bar on appeal of institution decisions, Thryv effectively insulated the PTO’s choice of institution rules from appeal.  That’s not a good situation, and it’s one which the Director should actively seek to…

Polaris Concurrence Explains Why Arthrex Was Wrong, But Signals Federal Circuit Won’t Fix It

Today’s Federal Circuit decision in Polaris v. Kingston had an unsurprising outcome—in line with last year’s Arthrex decision, the PTAB’s determination was remanded back to the PTO for review in line with Arthrex.  But while the decision was brief, the concurrence—authored by Judge Hughes and joined by Judge Wallach—was not.  It explains, in detail, just…

Nartron IPRs a Touchstone For Understanding PTAB Discretion

The PTAB’s recent institution decisions in petitions filed against US5,796,183, a touchscreen patent owned by Nartron, are useful in understanding how the PTAB can be expected to address other situations with multiple simultaneous petitions, especially when a later petitioner may be able to benefit from a decision on an earlier petition.

STRONGER Patents—Bad Legislation

Yesterday, the STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 was introduced by Senators Chris Coons and Tom Cotton, along with a House companion bill introduced by Reps. Steve Stivers and Bill Foster.  The bill looks much like the last two times it was introduced [1][2], but there have been a few changes.