Last week, yet another request for Director Review shined a light on what has become the seedy underbelly of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In Innoscience Technology Co. LTD., v. Efficient Power Conversion Corp. (IPR2023-01381), not only did the PTAB institute a challenge brought by a China-based infringer (Innoscience) against a U.S.-based patent owner (Efficient Power Conversion), but the challenge was instituted after completion of a week-long trial at the International Trade Commission (ITC) and during the process of post-trial briefing.
Recent Posts
- Recentive Rehearing Petition Challenges CAFC’s Broad Section 101 Exclusion of Machine Learning Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 20: Advocate General Tells CJEU to Affirm €4 Billion Antitrust Fine Against Google; Recentive Challenges Section 101 Invalidation of Machine Learning Claims
- Stewart Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ Criteria in Interim Discretionary Denial Process
- Mediocre Results so Far for Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot
- European Patent Organization: Responses from ChatGPT Do Not Represent the “Understanding of a Skilled Person”