APJs Confirm a Deposition Protocol

Scott Daniels | July 25, 2014

The issue of when an attorney defending a deposition in an IPR proceeding may privately speak with his or her witness arose this week in Focal Therapeutics v. Senorex (IPR2014-00116).

According to counsel for the Patent Owner, when he had concluded his cross-examination of the Petitioner’s expert witness, “Petitioner’s counsel initiated a private conference with his witness to discuss his redirect testimony.”  Evidently, counsel for the Patent Owner complained and the parties sought clarification from the APJs.  The question posed was whether during the specific period – after cross-examination concluded, but before redirect questioning has begun – may the defending attorney privately confer with the witness.

Read More/続きを読む

A Likely Uphill Battle for Synopsys In Suit Against The Patent Office

Cindy Chen | June 13, 2014

In a complaint recently filed in a Virginia federal court, Synopsys accused the Patent and Trademark Office (“the Patent Office”) of prescribing rules and regulations for inter partes review (77 Fed. Reg. 48727) that are procedurally defective and ultra vires. Synopsys took issue specifically with Patent Office’s Rules 42.108(a) and (b), which govern the institution of review and instruct that:

(a) When instituting inter partes review, the Board may authorize the review to proceed on all or some of the challenged claims and on all or some of the grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim;

(b) At any time prior to institution of inter partes review, the Board may deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims. Denial of a ground is a Board decision not to institute inter partes review on that ground.

These rules, Synopsys argued, are inconsistent with Sections 314(a) and 318(a) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”). Section 314(a) sets the threshold for instituting inter partes review at “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Synopsys interpreted this statutory language to mean that where the threshold is met, the Patent Office must grant a petition for inter partes review in whole.
Read More/続きを読む

Scope of Live Testimony in Final IPR Hearings

Scott Daniels | June 4, 2014

Last week we reported that in K-40 Electronics v. Escort (IPR2013-00203), the APJs had granted the Patent Owner’s request that its inventor be allowed to give live testimony on his invention’s conception date, presumably to remove the references as prior art.  The APJs explained that live testimony was appropriate in view of the type of testimony to be presented.  They set a procedure, however, in which the inventor first would be cross-examined by the Petitioner on his declaration, followed by re-direct examination by the Patent Owner.

Read More/続きを読む

Terminal Disclaimer does not Change Claim Construction Standard, at least not in the Final Stages of an Inter Partes Review

Scott Daniels | May 28, 2014

Patent Owners have criticized the new AIA post-issuance proceedings for a number of reasons.  The loudest criticism, however, has been directed at the APJs’ giving challenged patent claims their “broadest reasonable construction” – making them more vulnerable to attack from the prior art.  Only where the patent has expired (and the Patent owner may no longer amend its claims) do the APJs follow the practice of the District Courts in infringement actions, by construing claims more narrowly according to the Phillips v. AWH decision.

Read More/続きを読む

Next Page »

Subscribe | 登録


Recent Posts



  • dictionary
  • dictionary
  • 英語から日本語

Double click on any word on the page or type a word:

Powered by DictionaryBox.com