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.”
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- Justices Seek Abitron Parties’ Help in Articulating Bounds of Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
- U.S. Taxpayers Should Not Be Paying for Private Patent Infringement
- UK Court Hands Down Key FRAND Ruling in InterDigital v. Lenovo
- Litigation Trends, Shared Core Technologies Make Wi-Fi 6 an Attractive SEP Monetization Target (Part 1)
- Other Barks & Bites: UK Rules in InterDigital-Lenovo SEP Fight; USPTO to add FDA Info to PTE Page; Copyright Office Launches Initiative to Explore AI’s Implications on Copyright Law
Recent Posts
- Justices Seek Abitron Parties’ Help in Articulating Bounds of Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
- U.S. Taxpayers Should Not Be Paying for Private Patent Infringement
- UK Court Hands Down Key FRAND Ruling in InterDigital v. Lenovo
- Litigation Trends, Shared Core Technologies Make Wi-Fi 6 an Attractive SEP Monetization Target (Part 1)
- Other Barks & Bites: UK Rules in InterDigital-Lenovo SEP Fight; USPTO to add FDA Info to PTE Page; Copyright Office Launches Initiative to Explore AI’s Implications on Copyright Law