|
|
|
11.12.2014
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
E*TRADE Fin. Corp. et al v. Droplets, Inc.
McKool Smith represents Droplets, the holder of numerous patents related to rich Internet applications, in a litigation against several financial services defendants in the Southern District of New York as well as... Read More >>
|
 |
Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Courtesy Products, LLC
Based on the AIA’s restrictive discovery rules, the Board denied a patent owner’s request for additional discovery of potential evidence regarding whether a third party was the real party in interest and/or in privity with petitioner. Read More >>
|
Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Synopsys, Inc.
The Board denied petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information
containing the patent owner’s preliminary infringement contentions in
underlying... Read More >>
|
 |
 |
Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC
The Board frequently uses its rulings to instruct practitioners on proper PTAB practice. It recently explained that any objections to evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be served within ten business days of the institution of the trial... Read More >>
|
VMWare, Inc. v. Good Technology Software, Inc.
In a first step for securing rare early discovery in an IPR proceeding, McKool Smith secured leave for its patent-owner client Good Technology to file a motion seeking discovery related to the petitioner’s lack of standing under the one-year bar provisions of the AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), Read More »
|
 |
 |
Analagous Prior Art in an Obviousness Analysis
Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co.
In an IPR dealing with the rare issue of analogous prior art in an obviousness analysis, the Board held in favor of the Patent Owner that a prior art reference was not analogous and therefore was disqualified from use in the IPR proceeding. Read More >>
|
Federal District Court Decisions - IPR Rulings Not Admissible as Evidence in Patent Infringement Litigation
Two recent federal district court decisions refused to admit rulings from IPR proceedings as evidence in patent infringement litigation:
- Interdigital Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.
- Ultratec, Inc. et al. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc.
Read More >>
|
 |
Recent PTAB Decisions: Petitioners Entitled to IPRs or Not?
Two recent PTAB decisions illustrate that petitioners are not entitled to IPRs based on substantially the same prior art and arguments that the petitioner raised in previous petitions against the same patents:
- Unilever, Inc. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.
- Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC, v. GEVO, Inc.
Read More >>
|
|
