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…
Tag Archive for inter partes review
In Thryv, Supreme Court Clarifies Bar On Review of Institution Decisions
by Josh Landau •
In today’s decision in Thryv v. Click-To-Call, the Supreme Court held that the AIA means what it says—decisions to institute an inter partes review “shall be final and nonappealable.”
Polaris Concurrence Explains Why Arthrex Was Wrong, But Signals Federal Circuit Won’t Fix It
by Josh Landau •
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…
Patent Links and Articles to Read by the Fire
by Josh Landau •
With the holiday season upon us, there’s nothing better than to curl up by the fire with a hot cup of tea and a stack of patent-related articles. Here’s a few you might want to take a look at.
Nartron IPRs a Touchstone For Understanding PTAB Discretion
by Josh Landau •
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
by Josh Landau •
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.
SCOTUS Won’t Review Tribal Immunity To Inter Partes Review
by Josh Landau •
On Monday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Saint Regis Mohawk v. Mylan case, bringing to a close a nearly 18-month-long attempt to sell tribal sovereign immunity as a shield against the inter partes review (IPR) process.
Beauchamp on Founding-Era Patent Revocation
by Josh Landau •
An article from Prof. Chris Beauchamp, newly published in the Vanderbilt Law Review and titled “Repealing Patents”, examines the history of Founding-era patent revocation. It’s a complex story, influenced by the changing character of the pre-1836 patent system, and reveals that there did seem to be a belief in a public interest in the invalidation…
ITC Again Recommends Exclusion Based on a Patent Likely to be Found Invalid
by Josh Landau •
International Trade Commission (ITC) Administrative Law Judge McNamara issued a Notice of Issuance of Initial Determination today, explaining that, based on a complaint from Qualcomm, she had found that Apple infringed claim 1 (but not claim 8) of U.S. Pat. No. 8,063,674, and that the claim was valid. Based on that, she stated that she…
CCIA Letter to Senate Judiciary IP Subcommittee Members On Questionable Studies
by Josh Landau •
At last week’s Senate Judiciary IP Subcommittee hearing, questioners referenced two studies. The first, on multiple IPR petitions, was conducted by Steve Carlson and Ryan Schultz of Robins Kaplan. The second, on venture capital and § 101, was conducted by Prof. David Taylor of SMU. But, as Twain said in a somewhat more colorful form,…