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
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 26: New Group Registration for Frequently Updated News Websites, Trade Secret Claims Against TikTok Survive Dismissal, and USPTO’s Estoppel Provisions in IPR Proceedings Upheld
- Call Off Chicken Little: The Sky is Not Falling for Skinny Labeling After GSK v. Teva
- CAFC Committee Recommends Another Year of Sanctions Against Newman
- Massie Tells House IP Subcommittee Witnesses He’s ‘Appalled’ By Proposals to Rein in ITC’s Patent Powers
- CAFC Invalidates Remaining Claim on Data Transmission Patent, Remands Substitute Claims for Collateral Estoppel Determination