We are two weeks away from the marquee PTAB practitioner event of 2025 – PTAB Masters! This high-level, interactive, limited enrollment program includes discussions on all aspects of the PTAB practice led by highly experienced practitioners and top thought leaders in the industry (and then there’s me). Topics include best practices for
Earlier this year, the USPTO Director clarified that competitors of a multi-defendant suit do not necessarily share a “significant relationship” consistent with PTAB precedent to justify a discretionary denial of an otherwise meritorious IPR petition. Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless LLC (IPR2023-00763). Late last week, the Director considered another common multi-party litigation scenario. This time the Director explored the degree of interest (i.e., degree of cooperation, contractual obligation, or common purpose) necessary to create an RPI or privity relationship such that a 315(b) bar of one such party applies to the other — specifically, in customer/supplier indemnification scenarios.
In Luminex International Co. Ltd v. Signify Holdings B.V., the Director considered whether an indemnification obligation, absent more, demonstrates an RPI relationship, or creates privity between a customer and supplier.Continue Reading PTAB: Customer/Supplier RPI & Privity?
This coming Thursday January 18th (noon to 1 p.m. (EST)) the PTAB will host its first Boardside Chat of the year. The program will discuss issues that typically arise during an America Invents Act (AIA) proceeding before the Board (PTAB). Topics will include:
• Preparing a patent owner preliminary response
•
The so-called PREVAIL Act (here) was floated some weeks back to “to ensure the United States does not cede technological supremacy to our foreign competitors and adversaries.” As the accompanying materials insist, fighting China is the rationale behind the bill’s proposed patent reforms. That is, the U.S. Patent system must be made stronger to rival the Chinese threat by weakening the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).
If this “stronger patents” argument sounds familiar, it should. Before its reinvention as the Prevail Act, the same “litigation first” ideas were packaged to the American public as the so-called Stronger Patents Act. But, the “Stronger” Bill went absolutely nowhere despite being introduced every year for the past six years (maybe 7, I lost count).
Not surprisingly, increasing patent litigation expense and unnecessary liability for successful U.S companies in the name of “stronger patents” didn’t resonate on the Hill. This is because the America Invents Act (AIA), which created PTAB trial was passed into law a little more than a decade ago for the purpose of reducing wasteful litigation over improvidently issued patents— and is working exactly as intended. Few legislators (aside from sponsors) were interested in a proposal to effectively repeal the AIA. So, after years of failure, this perennially failed effort has been newly-minted as the PREVAIL Act.
While the new spin also argues for stronger patents, it presents the need as a necessary tool to “prevail” against the growing technological threat from communist China. Ironically, the blatant dishonesty of this new spin only serves to highlight the critical importance of the PTAB to U.S. interests.Continue Reading The Prevail Act – Harm U.S. Industry to Fight China?
The PTAB’s next Boardside Chat webinar will be held this Thursday, July 20, from noon to 1 p.m. ET. The panel of APJs will discuss issues that typically arise during an America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceeding before the PTAB. The scheduled topics include filing of multiple petitions, discretionary denial, new
Join me this Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 12 PM ET, as IPWatchdog looks toward the end of the year, This PTAB specific panel will take a look back on the major PTAB developments from 2022, the changes to the PTAB ushered in by Director Vidal, as
As I predicted some months back, the new Director has now addressed the 314(a) policies of her predecessor. Under the previous Director, Fintiv and a filing in the WDTX, or ITC was a one-two punch for plaintiffs.
No more.Continue Reading PTAB Pulls the Rug Out From Under WDTX Plaintiffs
At the close of former USPTO Director Iancu’s tenure, he issued a memo explaining that Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) should not be used as a basis of an AIA trial ground.
Today, new Director Vidal issued a revised memo to “provide more certainty and predictability in proceedings before the
Last week the PTAB announced a change to its internal handling of decisions. That is, while previously PTAB management reviewed certain decisions to ensure consistent treatment of relatively uncommon issues, that duty is now being passed to rank-and-file PTAB judges.
Why would anyone care about this (other than me), and why the change? Because the PTAB was plainly out-to-get innocent patent owners, that’s why!! Continue Reading PTAB Adjusts Internal Review Process
Patent Owners that had the option to avail themselves of the new Director Review process under former interim Director Hirshfeld have been crying foul to the Federal Circuit. Their argument being that the Arthrex holding required a Senate confirmed Director Review, and that an interim Director (promoted from within) did not meet that criteria. Argument was heard a month or so back at the Federal Circuit on this issue.
Since that time, Senate confirmed Director Vidal has finally taken the wheel. Realizing this, the gov’t now hopes to pull the plug on these appeals.Continue Reading More PTAB Arthrex Remands?