The case of Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc. has seen the usual number of twists and turns as it wended its way through Article III courts and an inter partes review (IPR), but a U.S. Supreme Court case that requires that all claims in an IPR be reviewed was decided during the Fitbit IPR.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear three cases that questioned the inter partes review (IPR) process for patent litigation, although the petition for cert for the Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.; Arthrocare Corp.; and the United States of America case is still pending. Should the Supreme Court pass on Arthrex, the remaining affected IPR cases will have to be relitigated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which may give those patent holders another chance to restore their patents.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has posted a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018, SAS v. Iancu, and the first item on the PTO agenda is to formally require that an inter partes review (IPR) consist of an exhaustive review of all the claims contested by the petitioner.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has posted a notice of proposed rulemaking in response to a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2018, SAS v. Iancu, and the first item on the PTO agenda is to formally require that an inter partes review (IPR) consist of an exhaustive review of all the claims contested by the petitioner.
Assignor estoppel doesn’t enjoy the glamour of subject matter eligibility in the U.S. patent system, but a case heard recently at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has resurrected this relatively arcane bit of patent doctrine. The outcome of the case of Hologic v. Minerva addressed the less-than-princely sum of roughly $5 million, but Judge Kara Stoll of the Federal Circuit said this issue calls for a deeper examination by a 12-judge panel.
The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined it would not take an inter partes review petitioned by Advanced Bionics Inc., in a patent dispute with Med-El Elektromedizinische. The precedential PTAB decision notes that it had invoked a two-step process for declining to take the petition as seen in a patent dispute involving Becton Dickinson and Co., and affirming that this will be the standard for addressing prior art in such appeals going forward.
The case of Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., has raised a host of questions about the appointment of judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and witnesses at a congressional hearing said a Supreme Court review might be two years in coming. Any such resolution might not clear out the thicket of underlying legal questions, however, and thus the witnesses urged Congress to take action quickly even as the Federal Circuit considers an en banc hearing of the matter.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decreed that the regulations governing appointment of judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violate the U.S. Constitution – a decision that gives a medical device maker a new bite at patent litigation, but which also raises the question of whether a large number of PTAB decisions will have to be relitigated.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decreed that the regulations governing appointment of judges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violate the U.S. Constitution – a decision that gives a medical device maker a new bite at patent litigation, but which also raises the question of whether a large number of PTAB decisions will have to be relitigated.
Depending on who's talking, the U.S. patent system may, or may not, be in dire need of reform. In a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing Wednesday on the bipartisan STRONGER Patents Act, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) stressed the need to undo the precedent set by the Supreme Court's 13-year-old eBay decision that weakened injunctive relief in infringement cases and to resolve some of the unintended consequences of the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA).
