[ad_1]
It was a mean week for patent filings on the Patent Trial and Attraction Board (PTAB) and a barely above-average week in district courts, with 62 district courtroom complaints filed and 21 new PTAB petitions—one petition for Put up Grant Assessment (PGR), and 20 for Inter Partes Assessment (IPR).
On the PTAB, challenges have been filed towards quite a few entities, together with Movement Offense LLC (affiliated with Oso IP, LLC), Daingean Applied sciences Ltd (affiliated with Magnetar Capital and Longford Capital), Monarch Networking Options LLC (affiliated with Acacia Analysis Corp.), Entropic Communications (affiliated with Fortress). 5 filings got here from Visa difficult 4 patents owned by Cortex Mcp Inc (affiliated with Uphold HQ, Inc.).
The PTAB instituted 13 circumstances, together with two challenges by Pattern Micro, Inc towards a Webroot patent (affiliated with Open Textual content Company), and a problem by Hisense USA Corp towards a Brightplus Ventures LLC patent (related to IPValuation Companions, LLC). Establishment was denied in 12 circumstances and 15 circumstances settled, together with two challenges by Mercedes-Benz towards Michigan Motor Applied sciences (affiliated with Equitable IP Company). Ericsson settled six challenges towards Koninklijke Kpn NV patents.
In district courts, 62 new circumstances have been filed and 12 circumstances have been terminated. RecepTrexx LLC (related to Jeffrey M. Gross) filed three new circumstances towards Ericsson, Verizon, and AT&T, and Show Applied sciences LLC (related to Leigh M. Rothschild) filed two new circumstances towards Wondershare Expertise Group and Activision Publishing. Pueblo Nuevo LLC associates filed seven new circumstances.
Design Filings Proceed to Dominate the Northern District of Illinois
The Northern District of Illinois continues to see quite a few patent filings, with a complete of six this week. 5 of those filings are “Schedule A” circumstances, with unnamed defendants and in some circumstances, unnamed patents, hidden below seal. This continues a development each this 12 months, which has already reached double-digit Schedule A circumstances, and extra broadly throughout the district, in response to information from Lex Machina. Whereas design patent circumstances have been additionally filed in different districts, such because the Southern District of New York (7:24-cv-00604, in search of a declaratory judgement) and the Center District of Florida (8:24-cv-00204, alleging infringement), the clear chief in such filings continues to be the Northern District of Illinois.
Discretionary Denials See Uptick
Whereas the vast majority of establishment denials on the PTAB are primarily based on the deserves, discretionary denials proceed, together with 4 this week. One denial was primarily based solely on Part 325(d) (in PGR2023-00041), the place the petitioner offered grounds that relied on 5 references, 4 of which have been beforehand thought of by the examiner. As a part of its arguments, the petitioner famous that the U.S, Patent and Trademark Workplace (USPTO) had granted ex parte reexamination of a associated patent, discovering a considerable new query of patentability primarily based on the identical grounds because the petition within the PGR. Nonetheless, the PTAB discovered that the grant of an ex parte reexamination didn’t function proof itself of fabric error, and that the petitioner failed to offer different persuasive arguments or proof to beat the Advanced Bionics framework and Part 325(d).
Three different challenges have been introduced by Videndum Manufacturing Options, Inc. towards Rotolight Ltd patents (affiliated with Rotolight Group Ltd). The patents at subject within the three IPRs have been beforehand challenged in IPRs by which the circumstances have been terminated. Two of the patents concerned prior IPRs filed by Videndum by which establishment was denied, the place the PTAB denied establishment within the follow-on petitions below Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017). Within the third case (IPR2023-01218), Videndum had not beforehand filed IPRs difficult the patent, however a problem was filed by a competitor sued by the identical patent proprietor. The PTAB discovered that the later-filed petition gave Videndum the chance to morph its positions and bolster arguments primarily based on the trial report within the earlier-filed IPR, the place the identical grounds have been used because the earlier-filed IPR. These circumstances function a reminder for petitioners to each be diligent in submitting IPRs (particularly copycat challenges), and to pay attention to scrutiny by the PTAB towards follow-on petitions by the identical celebration.
Hyperlinks to the circumstances mentioned above and extra can be found within the Weekly UP, which can be found here.
Picture Supply: Deposit Pictures
Writer: 72soul
Picture ID: 21876589
[ad_2]
Source link
