Tag Archives: CAFC

Federal Circuit Clarifies That It Still Lacks Jurisdiction To Review Whether Petition Was Time-Barred

A “determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”  35 U.S.C. § 314(d).  A series of decisions from the Federal Circuit have clarified to what extent institution decisions are reviewable.  See St. Jude v. Volcano (CAFC lacks jurisdiction to review decision not to institute … Continue Reading

Fed. Cir. Decision Reiterates The Importance Of Raising All Bases For Invalidity In An IPR Petition

On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s final rejection of a claim, finding that the rejection was procedurally improper because the PTAB relied on a basis raised for the first time during the oral argument. That decision highlights the importance of petitioners thoroughly developing all potential invalidity bases in the initial petition. Specifically, Dell … Continue Reading

The CAFC Rules That It Lacks Jurisdiction To Review PTAB’s Denial Of Institution On “Redundant” Grounds

The Federal Circuit’s Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech decision last week is the latest in a string of decisions from the CAFC ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to review various aspects of PTAB institution decisions.  In this case, the CAFC ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR … Continue Reading

The CAFC Reverses And Remands The PTAB’s IPR Decision Canceling All Claims Based On Erroneous Claim Construction

For the third time in November, the CAFC found legal error in a PTAB final written decision—this time based on an erroneous claim construction.  In Straight Path v. Sipnet (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2015), the PTAB instituted an IPR for claims 1-7 and 32-42 of a patent directed to establishing real-time communications between computers over … Continue Reading

Two Recent CAFC Opinions Closely Scrutinize PTAB IPR Decisions Upholding Claim Validity For Legal Error

Two opinions that came down this month illustrate the CAFC’s close scrutiny of potential legal errors in PTAB Final Written Decisions.  These decisions underline the benefits of appellants focusing their arguments on legal errors—or even legal ambiguities—in PTAB decisions. Belden v. Berk-Tek (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) involved a patent directed to a method for … Continue Reading
LexBlog