Source: http://www.aiablog.com/tag/precedential-opinion/
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 10:21:20
Document Index: 748825690

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 311', '§ 325', '§ 328', '§ 315', '§ 325', '§ 328']

Precedential Opinion Archives - AIA Blog - Finnegan
Tagged with Precedential Opinion …
Author: Jason E. Stach
The PTAB designated as precedential its Institution Decision in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Moldings Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290, Paper No. 18 (Oct. 25, 2013). According to the Patent Office’s message announcing this new precedential designation, “[t]his decision determines that the doctrine of assignor estoppel is not an exception to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a), which allows ‘a person who is not the owner of a patent’ to file a petition for inter partes review.” Continue reading →
Tagged assignor estoppel, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Precedential Opinion
PTO Designates New Precedential Opinions on Final Written Decision Estoppel and the One-Year Time Bar for IPR
Author: Shaton C. Menzie
On Wednesday, January 13, 2016, the PTAB designated two new “precedential” decisions, providing authority on issues of estoppel stemming from a final written decision and the one-year deadline for IPR filings:
Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176 (Paper. No. 28) (May 14, 2015)
LG Electronics v. Mondis Technology, Ltd., IPR2015-00937 (Paper No. 8) (Sept. 17, 2015)
In Westlake, the petitioner filed a petition (CBM2014-00008) challenging all claims of a patent, but the Board only instituted and rendered a final written decision on some of the claims. When Westlake filed a second petition (CBM2014-00176) challenging the subset of the claims for which the Board did not institute review, Credit Acceptance argued that the petition was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) because “th[e] [earlier institution and final written] decisions [together] resolved the Petitioner’s challenges to all claims.” Paper 25 at 2-3. The Board disagreed, finding “that estoppel is applied on a claim-by-claim basis” because, “[b]y its terms, estoppel is invoked under Section 325(e)(1) as to ‘a claim in a patent’ that ‘results in a final written decision under’ 35 U.S.C. § 328(a).” Paper No. 28 at 5.
Tagged 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1), 35 U.S.C. § 328(a), CBM, Covered Business Method, Estoppel, Inter Partes Review, IPR, one-year rule, Precedential Opinion, PTAB, Time Bar, USPTO