The PTAB Today: A Review of the PTAB Landscape

The PTAB Today: A Review of the PTAB Landscape

View Session Speakers

The Iancu Administration has given way to the Vidal Administration, but what— if anything— has changed relative to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)? This expanded 75-minute panel will take a look at the biggest issues and cases from 2022, including Director Vidal’s handling of the OpenSky matter, and discuss the evolution of discretionary denials. The panel will also discuss precedential opinions from 2022.

OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 (October 4, 2022) [AIA – holding Petitioner’s conduct was an abuse of the inter partes review process, sanctioning Petitioner, and remanding for a determination of whether the petition, based only on the record before the Board prior to institution, presents a compelling, meritorious challenge] (sua sponte Director review decision)

NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (September 7, 2022) [AIA § 314(a), affirming decision denying rehearing – the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation related to Fintiv factor 4 is prior to the Board’s decision on institution] (sua sponte Director review decision)

Code200, UAB v. Bright Data, Ltd., IPR2022-00861 & IPR2022-00862, Paper 18 (August 23, 2022) [AIA § 314(a), vacating decision denying institution – analysis of General Plastic factors relating to a second-filed petition when the first-filed petition was not evaluated on the merits] (sua sponte Director review decision)

Materials*

Weaponization of the PTAB Presents First Challenge for Vidal

OpenSky Attorney Emails Expose the Seedy Underbelly of PTAB Practice

Vidal Bans OpenSky from Active Role in VLSI IPR in Precedential Director Review Decision

Vidal’s Solution to OpenSky Abuse Encourages PTAB Extortion

* A Note on Materials: For live, in-person programs we apply for MCLE in Virginia, as well as other jurisdictions (see the MCLE tab in the navigation bar above). MCLE regulations require substantive writing on the topic covered during the presentation. The materials provided, often published by IPWatchdog.com authors and contributors, relate to the topic but are not intended to pigeonhole guest speakers in any way. They are intended to be informative and elucidate the issues that will be discussed, although not necessarily represent the point of view that will be taken by any particular panelist. To date, the articles we have selected have always been sufficient to satisfy MCLE authorities.