Tag Archive for PTAB

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…

A Follow-up on CyWee and ZTE v. LG and the Public

A few weeks ago, I covered a PTAB case that illustrates why the PTO’s proposed rule on who bears the burden on amended claims in IPRs is fatally flawed.  In that case, ZTE challenged a CyWee patent and LG joined the ZTE petition.  But CyWee filed an amended claim that ZTE wasn’t concerned by. ZTE…

CyWee, ZTE, and the PTAB v. the Public Interest

In an order issued this week in IPR2019-00143, a panel of PTAB judges decided that the public has no interest in ensuring that only valid patent claims issue from the Patent Office. That’s not an exaggeration—if anything, it understates the case.  In fact, the PTAB order states that “the public is generally likely to benefit…

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.

Christmas (Tree Patents) In July

It’s the week of the Fourth of July and that means that it’s time to talk about Christmas trees.  Or at least about patents for creating an electric connection between different sections of artificial trees. In a pair of decisions yesterday [1][2], both dealing with a dispute between two companies over artificial Christmas trees, the…

FTC Hearings #4: Patents, Intellectual Property, and Innovation

This post has been cross-posted to DisCo. Last week, the FTC held the fourth in its set of hearings focusing on “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.”  The first day focused on a review of the current landscape of intellectual property and competition.  The second day featured a variety of panels focusing on…