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
- CAFC: Jury Instructions Must Address Each Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Raised by Patent Owner
- Massive Replication of Comments Submitted to NIST March-In Rights RFI Should Cause Concern
- Lourie Dissents from CAFC View that Heart Valve Transport was Not Infringing
- Rader’s Ruminations – Patent Eligibility II: How the Supreme Court Ignored Statute and Revived Its Innovation-Killing Two-Step
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, March 22: French Watchdog Hits Google with €250 Million for IP Breaches; C4IP Releases First Congressional Innovation Scorecard; EPO Sees Record Number of Patent Applications