Tag Archive for inter partes review

One Case, All The Problems: VLSI v. Intel Exemplifies Current Issues In Patent Litigation

Patent litigation suffers from a number of issues at present. Hedge funds backing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in order to chase a share of billion-dollar judgments.   Plaintiffs using damages methodologies that have little to no relation to the reality of the patent system in order to obtain those billion dollar judgments. NPEs asserting patents that they…

New Study Shows That IPR Delivers An Economic Benefit, Even If The District Court Doesn’t Stay Litigation

New research from the Perryman Group shows that inter partes review (IPR) is economically beneficial, even if co-pending district court litigation isn’t stayed.  The Perryman study, commissioned by Unified Patents, examines IPR’s economic impact, including the difference between staying or continuing on with a co-pending district court case.  There are two important findings in this…

Comments on USPTO’s Newest Regulation Overall Oppose Discretionary Denial Rules

The USPTO is considering whether to enshrine discretionary denial of inter partes review cases into regulation.  Last week, comments were due on the most recent portion of this process.  (CCIA’s comments criticizing the current General Plastic, Valve, NHK Spring, and Fintiv precedential opinions, and explaining why they should not be converted into rules, can be…

Changes Reducing IPR Institution Rate Have Increased Litigation Frequency and Cost

graph showing close correlation between cost of NPE litigation and increases in procedural denials of IPR

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s precedential opinions on discretionary denial are the subject of significant attention—a withdrawn attempt by the Trump Administration to codify discretionary denial as a rule, a request for comments on rulemaking by the Office, and a challenge to the practice of discretionary denial as illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act.…

Cert Granted in Arthrex Case On PTAB Appointments

This week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a set of related cases between Arthrex and Smith & Nephew, as well as the federal government.  The cases revolve around one fundamental question: are judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) principal officers of the United States?  That question controls the constitutionality of their…

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…