Posts Tagged: "PTAB"

Patent Filings Roundup: Pulling the Pinn; Cal Tech Expands Chip Suit; USF Research Foundation Patent Petitioned

It was another typical Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)/district court split this week, with 33 petitions (two of them post grant reviews [PGRs]) and 71 district court complaints filed. There’s a seemingly new non-practicing entity (NPE) campaign by Jeffrey Gross, Netcom Global Solutions, LLC, with a few new filings, a Chinese e-Bike manufacturer, Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Tech., Co., Ltd & Unicorn Global, Inc.] who has sued a number of companies over U.S. patents in district court; and somehow the Symbology (and other Rothschild) suits continue to find defendants to sue, this time targeting mall storefronts David Yurman and Perfumania.com. A number of petitions were filed against NPE K.Mizra (also associated with NPE Ginegar LLC, who last week continued to assert U.S. Patent 9,367,531).

Mysterious Patent Attacks: Policymakers Must Stand Up and Require Patent Membership Organizations Reveal Themselves

A strong and predictable intellectual property system is crucial to protecting and promoting American innovation around the globe. It allows American businesses of any size to compete globally, creating millions of American jobs. Strong intellectual property rights provide a strong foundation for America’s role as the world’s innovation and technological leader, powering our world with the next generation of technology to help kids learn, to connect remote workers, provide better access to healthcare and help make our planet more sustainable. The role of innovation (from vaccines to communication technology, content creation, etc.) has never been more crucial than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The ability to protect what one creates or invents grows our economy and GDP, generates incentives to continue the innovation process, and makes our country safer and more secure from foreign adversaries.  

Patent Filings Roundup: Canon(ball) Runs to the ITC; District Court Filings Spike

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings held at 25 this week, with one post grant review (PGR) and 24 inter partes reviews (IPRs); district court patent filings jumped significantly, however, to 95, with Cannon’s lengthy scorched-earth filings against dozens of competitors making up the bulk of that jump. The IPRs were propped up by a handful of Samsung-filed petitions against Aquis; Samsung also continued to trickle out petitions against Ericsson related to the now-infamous FRAND 5G rate case ping-ponging between China and the Eastern District of Texas. Hisense and LG filed a number of IPRs related to a semiconductor dispute with Polaris, and Qualcomm continued to battle Vector Capital-backed Monterey Research at the Board over non-practicing entity (NPE) semiconductor assertions, earning institution on at least three of the IPRs they’ve filed to date. And Amazon is having mixed luck with IPRs against a failed voice technology company they have a long history with.

CAFC Says Appellate Review of PTAB Institution Denials is Limited to ‘Extraordinary Circumstances’

On March 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted Janssen Pharmaceuticals’ motion to dismiss Mylan Laboratories’ appeal and denied Mylan Laboratories’ request for mandamus relief, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mylan’s appeal and that Mylan had failed to qualify for mandamus relief. In 2019, Janssen Pharmaceuticals sued Mylan Laboratories in district court for infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (the ‘906 patent). In response, Mylan Laboratories petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for inter partes review (IPR) of the ‘906 patent, raising four grounds for the unpatentability of certain claims, all based on 35 U.S.C. §103. In opposition to the institution of the IPR, Janssen Pharmaceuticals argued that the IPR “would be an inefficient use of Board resources,” due to two co-pending district court cases: the suit against Mylan Laboratories and another against Teva Pharmaceuticals, arguing “that both actions would likely reach final judgment before any IPR final written decision.”

CAFC Affirms PTAB Rejection of Stanford Haplotype Phasing Patent Claims Under Alice

On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to hold the rejected claims from Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) were not patent eligible because the claims are drawn to abstract mathematical calculations and statistical modeling. The examiner rejected claims 1, 4 to 11, 14 to 25, and 27 to 30 of U.S. Application Nos. 13/445,925 (‘925 application), “methods and computing systems for determining haplotype phase,” for involving patent ineligible subject matter. The CAFC applied the two-step framework under Alice v. CLS Bank to determine whether the claims were patent eligible.