Ashvi Patel

Featured in: Favicon

jdsupra.com Favicon

lexology.com Favicon

mondaq.com

Articles

PTAB Rescinds Discretionary Denial Memorandum | JD Supra

1 month ago | jdsupra.com | Matthew Johnson |Ashvi Patel

On Friday, the USPTO rescinded its June 21, 2022, guidance memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation.” That memorandum discussed Office policy for discretionary denials in view of co-pending litigation.
Director Review: PTAB Must Articulate Bases For Section 325(d) Denial

Apr 15, 2024 | mondaq.com | Ashvi Patel |Joshua Nightingale

Director Vidal recently vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision to deny institution of three petitions for inter partes review (IPR), citing insufficient explanation for denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). Specifically, Director Vidal held that the PTAB's institution decision did not adequately address Petitioner's contention that there were material differences between the arguments made in its Petition and those considered during examination of the disputed patents.
Director Review: PTAB Must Articulate Bases for Section 325(d) Denial | JD Supra

Apr 8, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Joshua Nightingale |Ashvi Patel

Director Vidal recently vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to deny institution of three petitions for inter partes review (IPR), citing insufficient explanation for denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). Specifically, Director Vidal held that the PTAB’s institution decision did not adequately address Petitioner’s contention that there were material differences between the arguments made in its Petition and those considered during examination of the disputed patents.
Director Demonstrates Ability To Review Non-Dispositive PTAB Determinations

Jul 31, 2023 | mondaq.com | Ashvi Patel |Adam Cook |Joshua Nightingale

On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest ("RPIs") in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") improperly determined whether Apple and Samsung were RPIs in addition to Petitioner Unified Patents ("Unified") in the inter partes review ("IPR") proceeding.
Director Demonstrates Ability to Review Non-Dispositive PTAB Determinations | JD Supra

Jul 28, 2023 | jdsupra.com | Ashvi Patel

On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest ("RPIs") in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413....
Prior Conception Defeats Otherwise Sufficient Derivation Showing | JD Supra

Apr 14, 2023 | jdsupra.com | Sarah A. Geers |Ashvi Patel

In its second-ever Final Written Decision in a derivation proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) determined that a patent application for a biocidal composition and method of producing said biocidal composition did not derive from the work of another inventor. The decision illustrates that even if a petitioner is able to otherwise make the complex showings required for derivation, the petitioner can still be defeated by a showing of prior conception.
A Petitioner’s Guide: Navigating Uncertainty on PGR Eligibility | JD Supra

Mar 1, 2023 | jdsupra.com | Joshua Nightingale |Ashvi Patel

Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) recently faced the issue of determining whether U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ‘823 patent”) is a pre- or post-AIA patent. Hedging its bets, Samsung concurrently filed two petitions—one requesting inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘823 patent and the other petition requesting post-grant review (PGR). As detailed below, the PTAB found the ‘823 patent to be PGR-eligible, instituted PGR, and denied the IPR petition.
A Petitioner’s Guide: Navigating Uncertainty on PGR Eligibility

Feb 28, 2023 | lexology.com | Ashvi Patel |Joshua Nightingale

Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) recently faced the issue of determining whether U.S. Patent No. 11,163,823 (“the ‘823 patent”) is a pre- or post-AIA patent. Hedging its bets, Samsung concurrently filed two petitions—one requesting inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘823 patent and the other petition requesting post-grant review (PGR). As detailed below, the PTAB found the ‘823 patent to be PGR-eligible, instituted PGR, and denied the IPR petition.