Tag Archive for PTAB

Fintiv: More Work, Less Quality

When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “Board”) first decided the IPR that led to the Fintiv rule, it justified its decision on the basis of “balanc[ing] considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” But that rationale doesn’t hold up to the facts.

Arthrex, Mobility Workx, and Director Review at Institution

There’s been a fair amount of discussion regarding Judge Newman’s dissent in last week’s Mobility Workx case.  In Mobility Workx, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit rejected a variety of constitutional challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Judges Dyk and Schall, in the majority, found no merit in the due process…

Leahy and Cornyn Introduce Bill To Restore The America Invents Act

Yesterday, Senate Judiciary IP Subcommittee Chair Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and committee member Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Restoring the America Invents Act (RAIA).  RAIA would roll back changes introduced by former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and by the courts, restoring the America Invents Act (AIA) to what it was always intended to be—a cost-effective alternative…

Arthrex Is Here—What Will It Mean?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its much-awaited decision—at least, much-awaited by people who care about patents and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)—in the consolidated U.S. v Arthrex, Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, and Smith & Nephew v. Arthrex cases.  And while the multiple parties and multiple opinions might look complicated, it’s actually…

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…