Ex parte Grillo-Lopez, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (Jan. 31, 2020)
On April 7, 2020, the PTAB designated its January decision in Ex parte Grillo-Lopez (“the Decision”) as precedential. In the Decision, the Board held that patent examination and IPR proceedings have different standards for establishing a prior art printed publication, with the petitioner in an IPR facing a higher burden of showing that a reference was publicly accessible. Having been designated as precedential, the Decision is now binding authority in all USPTO ex parte proceedings. Continue reading…
Grunenthal GmbH v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC, PGR2018-00092 (Feb. 25, 2020)
In a recent decision invalidating certain claims of a pain treatment patent, the PTAB held that a 2012 article published in the scientific journal Rheumatology was a publicly available printed publication that qualified as prior art.
The Federal Circuit has ordered the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss or transfer Super Interconnect Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00463-JRG for lack of venue, because Google LLC, which contracted with internet service providers (ISPs) within the district to host its servers, had no employee or agent regularly conducting its business there.
The Federal Circuit has held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may not cancel claims as indefinite in an IPR proceeding.
In 2016, Prisua Engineering Corp. sued Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and other Samsung entities for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 (“Video Enabled Digital Devices for Embedding User Data in Interactive Applications”). Samsung then petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of the ‘591 patent, asserting that claims 1–4, 8, and 11—which are directed to methods and apparatuses for “generating a displayable edited video data stream from an original video data stream”—were unpatentable.
In a recent inter partes review decision invalidating a patent disclosing systems and methods for filtering network data transfers, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that a user manual was a publicly available printed publication that qualified as prior art.