Category Archives: Appeal

Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-2140 (IPR2017-00275) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 31, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remanded as APJs are “principal officers” that must be appointed by the President (as … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Covered Business Method Reviews, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Board properly decided to deny institution and dismiss IPRs on SAS remand instead of instituting on all grounds

BioDelivery Sciences Int., Inc. v. Aquesitive Therapeutics, Inc., FKA Monsol Rx, LLC Docket No. 2019-1643-45 (IPR2015-00165, -00168, -00169) NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, REYNA (Order) August 26, 2019 Brief Summary: On remand under SAS after instituting IPRs on less than all the … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

GE’s “purported competitive injuries” found not to provide standing to appeal IPR

General Electric Company (GE) v. United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Docket No. 2017-2497 (IPR2016-00531) REYNA, TARANTO, HUGHES July 10, 2019 Brief Summary: GE appealed Board IPR finding claims 7-11 of UTC’s US 8,511,605 relating to gear fan gas turbine engines not … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. et al.

Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2015-1242 (IPR2013-00312) O’Malley, Taranto, Stark (with en banc footnote 3) August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Board’s decision that § 315(b) one-year time bar does not apply where earlier complaint was … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Luminara Worldwide, LLC. vs. USPTO

Docket No. 2018-1629, -1631, -1633 IPR2015-01352, -10656, -01657, -01658 LOURIE, DYK, TARANTO August 16, 2018 Brief summary: Board finding that § 315(b) time-bar (IPR must be filed within one year of complaint servce) vacated as the bar applies to complaint … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re: Power Integrations, Inc.

Docket No. 2018-144, -145, -146, -147 IPR2017-01903, -01904, -01944, -01975 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, CHEN August 16, 2018 Brief summary: PI’s petitions petitions for a writ of mandamus challenging the PTAB’s decisions denying institution of IPRs of three patents denied (“this court … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

BioDelivery Sciences Int., Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. et al. (USPTO as Intervenor)

Docket No. 2017-1265-68 (IPR2015-00165, -00168, -00169) NEWMAN, LOURIE, REYNA July 31, 2018 Brief summary: BioDelivery’s requests for remand under SAS because the PTAB instituted IPRs on less than all asserted grounds granted and the PTAB’s FWDs were vacated. Summary: BioDelivery … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment