Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, IPR2018-00600 (July 6, 2020)
Designated Precedential on July 6, 2020

Petitioner Hunting Titan challenged Patent Owner Dynaenergetics’ claims based upon anticipation and obviousness. During the trial, Patent Owner filed a motion to present substitute claims. Petitioner opposed the substitute claims, but only presented arguments based upon obviousness.
Continue Reading IPR Decisions Are to Rely on the Adversarial Process

DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC,  IPR2018-01412, -01525 (June 14, 2019)

On June 11, 2020, the PTAB designated as precedential its 2019 decision in  DTN, LLC v. Farms Technology, LLC. The decision concerns the scope of the obligation to file agreements with the Patent Office under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) when seeking a termination.

The statute reads as follows:

Any agreement or understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, including any collateral agreements referred to in such agreement or understanding, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of an inter partes review under this section shall be in writing and a true copy of such agreement or understanding shall be filed in the Office before the termination of the inter partes review as between the parties. At the request of a party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents, and shall be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause.
Continue Reading The Obligation to Submit Agreements in IPRs Is Broad

General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, fka United Technologies Corporation, Case No. 19-1012.

On February 24, 2020, we reported on GE’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The petition sought review of the Federal Circuit’s doctrine on Article III standing for petitioners to appeal IPR decisions, which essentially required a possibility of

Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2020).

On January 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order that denied IPR petitioner Ciena’s motion to have a judgment vacated and remanded under Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The order was made precedential on May 5, 2020.
Continue Reading Arthrex Is Not for Everyone

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To Call Technologies, LP, et al., 590 U.S. ___, Case No. 18-916 (slip op., April 20, 2020)

IPR petitioner Thryv challenged patent owner Click-To-Call’s patent and several claims were cancelled. Click-To-Call sought judicial review of the IPR institution decision.

Click-To-Call alleged that a 2001 lawsuit between predecessor companies triggered the Section

Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020).

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image Processing’s U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134 in IPR2017-00353 and IPR2017-01218. The vacatur and remand was based upon the Federal Circuit’s earlier Arthrex decision, which held that the PTAB judges were improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arthrex decision from October 2019 is proving to be quite controversial, and the USPTO is seeking an opportunity to have the doctrine reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continue Reading U.S. Government in Search of Arthrex Reversal

General Electric v. United Technologies Corp.

General Electric petitioned for an IPR against a United Technologies patent relating to gas turbine engines. General Electric was unsuccessful against certain claims, and sought to appeal. While there is a statutory right to appeal, the Federal Circuit dismissed General Electric’s appeal for lack of Article III standing. See Gen. Elec. Co . v. United Techs. Corp., 928 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Continue Reading Standing to Appeal

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NuCurrent, Inc., IPR2019-00860 (February 7, 2020) (Paper No. 15).

Samsung filed two IPR petitions against NuCurrent’s U.S. Patent No. 8,680,960, which related to a multi-layer-multi-turn structure for high efficiency inductors. The first petition was IPR2019-00858 based upon the Lee reference, and the second petition was IPR2019-00860 based upon the Partovi reference. Both petitions challenged the same claims of the ‘960 patent. The ‘858 IPR was instituted, but the ‘860 IPR was not instituted due to redundancy.
Continue Reading A Rare Rehearing by the PTAB