Category Archives: Diligence

ATI Technologies ULC v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO)

Posted on April 17, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608 (IPR2015-00325, -00326, -00330) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH April 11, 2019 Brief summary: PTAB finding of invalidity due to ATI’s lack of diligence before filing its patent applications reversed (e.g., “[t]he PTAB identified no delays” or “gaps … Continue reading →

Posted in Conception and Reduction to Practice, Diligence, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR | Leave a comment

Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc.

Posted on April 1, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1520, -1521 (IPR2016-01385, -01388) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO March 26, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR findings of AC’s ‘188 patent claims unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness vacated (e.g., inventor proved prior conception and diligent reduction to practice); finding ‘822 … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Diligence, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Enhanced Security Research, LLC

Posted on January 14, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1114 DYK, O’MALLEY(D), TARANTO January 13, 2014 Brief Summary: Board decision of obviousness affirmed as reference found to have been publicly available and diligence in reduction to practice could not be shown from attorney’s records. Summary: Enhanced Security … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Diligence, Obviousness | Leave a comment