-
1 week ago | 
jdsupra.com | Robert Levent Hergüner |Matthew Johnson
In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the same patent was ongoing.
-
2 weeks ago | 
jdsupra.com | Matthew Johnson |Shane Padilla
Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) was persuaded to consider the merits of three out of seven concurrent petitions for an inter partes review of a single patent due to the patent’s complicated claiming structure involving multiple dependencies. Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Techs., LLC, IPR2024-01086, Paper 10 (Feb. 13, 2025). In June 2024, Apple Inc.
-
1 month ago | 
jdsupra.com | Jennifer Chheda Ph.D |Sarah A. Geers |Matthew Johnson
On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") acting director sent a memorandum regarding a new interim process for workload management to all Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") judges.
-
1 month ago | 
jdsupra.com | Matthew Johnson |Joshua Nightingale |Daniel Sloan
Recent developments at the USPTO suggest a significant shift in favor of the PTAB exercising discretionary denial and uncertainty on behalf of parties to PTAB proceedings. On March 24, 2025, following the February 28, 2025 rescission of former Director Vidal’s June 21, 2022 memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R.
-
1 month ago | 
jdsupra.com | Matthew Johnson
After rescinding the June 2022 guidance regarding Fintiv, the PTAB issued updates to how they will consider discretionary denial issues under Section 314(a) on Monday. The updated guidance states:On February 28, 2025, the USPTO rescinded the June 21 , 2022 memorandum entitled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Interim Procedure”).
-
1 month ago | 
jdsupra.com | Matthew Johnson
Honeywell filed a petition for inter partes review of 3G Licensing’s U.S. Patent No. 7,319,718, which claims a coding scheme for transmitting information in 3G mobile communication systems. The PTAB found none of the challenged claims unpatentable. Honeywell appealed.
-
2 months ago | 
mondaq.com | Ellen Geyer |Matthew Johnson
The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argumentthat the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR)jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patentsinvolve the grant of public rights, the court explained that thePTAB's authority is not tied to the patent's status. The case arose after Gesture was granted a patent for its imagecapture technology, which triggers a digital camera to capture animage when a particular motion – a gesture – isdetected in the visual field.
-
2 months ago | 
jdsupra.com | Ellen Geyer |Matthew Johnson
The Federal Circuit rejected a recent argument that the PTAB does not have inter partes review (IPR) jurisdiction over expired patents. Because even expired patents involve the grant of public rights, the court explained that the PTAB’s authority is not tied to the patent’s status. The case arose after Gesture was granted a patent for its image capture technology, which triggers a digital camera to capture an image when a particular motion – a gesture – is detected in the visual field.
-
2 months 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.
-
2 months ago | 
jdsupra.com | Sabrina Bellantoni |Matthew Johnson
Recently, a Director Review was granted where Director Vidal vacated the Patent Trial and Appeals Board’s (“PTAB”) Final Written Decision and remanded back to the PTAB for further consideration of enablement. Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLC, IPR2023-00953, Paper 78 (December 12, 2024). In May 2023, Duration Media LLP (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,443,329 (“the ’329 patent”).
