Close

Patent Lawyer Blog

Updated:

Inter Partes Review: The PTAB Warns Parties Against Sending Ex Parte Emails

In IPR2012-00035, on January 22, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Lane, Robertson and Guest) issued an order concerning an ex parte email sent by Petitioner Nissan North America, Inc. (“Petitioner”). According to the Petitioner’s email, in its Preliminary Response the Patent Owner made arguments based on…

Updated:

In-House Counsel’s Guide to Pro Hac Vice Admission to Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s new post-grant proceedings, including Inter Partes Review, are akin to litigation proceedings in several respects. As a result, the PTO Rules provide for the pro hac vice admission of litigation lawyers not licensed to practice before the Patent Office. However, practitioners should be…

Updated:

Patent Case Rulings from the Central District of California: Jan. 1 to Jan. 11, 2013

The following six decisions in patent cases pending in the Central District of California were reported for the period of January 1 through January 11, 2013. DATE CASE AND HOLDING JUDGE MOTION TYPE 1/2/2013 The Tawnsaura Group, LLC v. Maximum Human Performance, LLC, 2-12-cv-07189 Otero Dismiss The court denied defendants’…

Updated:

Brocade v. A10 Networks: Brocade Granted Permanent Injunction as It Satisfied Causal Nexus Requirement by Showing that It Practiced Its Patent, that A10 Was a Direct Competitor and that It Does Not License Its Patents

After the recent Federal Circuit decision in the Apple v. Samsung case and the district court’s application of that reasoning to find that a permanent injunction should not issue in Apple’s favor, many predicted that it would be very difficult to obtain a permanent injunction in patent cases going forward…

Updated:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Requires A Patent Owner’s Challenge on The Petitioner’s Standing to be Raised in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response

In IPR2012-00022, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) (A.P.J.s Tierney, Green and Robertson) issued a decision rejecting the Patent Owner Isis Innovation Limited’s (“Patent Owner”) motion for leave to challenge petitioner Arisoa Diagnostics’ (“Petitioner”) standing to file the petition for inter partes review. According to the Patent Owner, the…

Updated:

Danisco v. Novozymes: Declaratory Judgment Action for Non-Infringement and Invalidity Improper and Dismissed Where Action Was Filed Prior to or Simultaneously with the Issuance of the Patent

Danisco US, Inc. (“Danisco”) filed a declaratory judgment action asserting that its Rapid Starch Liquefaction products (“RSL products”) do not infringe certain patents held by Novozymes and that the patent-in-suit is invalid. Danisco and Novoyzymes are two of the major competitors in the field of developing and supplying industrial enzymes…

Updated:

California Court: Allegations That Defendant Used Product Is Sufficient To Plead Claim for Direct Infringement of Method Claims

In a patent case pending before Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, Defendant Pinnaclife Inc. (“Pinnaclife”) moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff CreAgri, Inc. (“CreAgri”) infringement claims under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949…

Updated:

Eastern District of Texas Orders Severance of Multi-Defendant Action Sua Sponte to Avoid One “Massive” and “Unmanageable” Trial

In a patent infringement action brought by Alexsam, Inc. (“Alexsam”) against thirteen separate defendants, grouped into seven issuers of electronic gift cards, the Eastern District of Texas decided to sever the defendants as the case got closer to trial. As explained by the court, “[t]his is the sixth lawsuit that…

Updated:

First Filed Inter Partes Review Granted With Mixed Results

Yesterday, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) issued a decision in the first IPR filed, i.e., IPR2012-00001. Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin”) filed the IPR on a patent owned and asserted by Cuozzo Special Technologies LLC (“Cuozzo”), U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 covering a speed limit indicator. Central to Garmin’s IPR…

Updated:

Allvoice v. Microsoft: Allvoice Loses Attempt to Modify Infringement Contentions after an Adverse Markman Ruling

In this patent infringement action, plaintiff Allvoice Developments US LLC (“Allvoice”) moved to amend its infringement contentions against Microsoft. Allvoice sought the amendment to incorporate changes that related to two claim constructions by the district court that differed from those asserted by Allvoice and to provide technical corrections or clarifications…

Contact Us