According to Judge Taranto, when the issue of indefiniteness of claims is raised in an IPR the challenge is not merely a contest between the petitioner and the patent owner, but rather protects the interests of the judicial system, the agency, and the public. Therefore, the Board should have conducted a prior-art analysis without any consideration of or deference to the stipulation of the parties, and entry of a final written decision on the merits absent such an independent consideration was inappropriate. The Board should have determined if there is indefiniteness and if “such indefiniteness renders it impossible to adjudicate the prior-art challenge on its merits, then the Board should conclude that it is impossible to reach a decision on the merits of the challenge and so state in its decision.”
Recent Posts
- Will the Federal Circuit Finally Follow Supreme Court Holdings on the Unavailability of the Laches Defense?
- CAFC Upholds Win for Janssen on Patent for Antipsychotic Med Dosing Regimen
- IP Innovators – From Patent Office to Managing Partner: Chris Agrawal’s Journey
- In Sonos v. Google, the Federal Circuit Has a Chance to Fix Its Prosecution Laches Doctrine
- Perspectives on the PTAB’s 70% All Claims Invalidation Rate