In a recent decision, the PTAB decided to institute an IPR despite that fact that a parallel ITC investigation was in its late stages. They reasoned that since ITC decisions are not binding on other forums, the ITC determination would not be enforceable as to the USPTO, and would not result in the cancellation of patent claims.
The Federal Circuit recently vacated part of its decision from three months ago, which held that “the Commission’s trademark decisions, like its patent decisions, do not have preclusive effect.”
In a recent decision, the PTAB decided to institute an IPR despite Patent Owner’s claims that Petitioner engaged in gamesmanship and asserted references and combinations that were cumulative of each other by relying on several prior art references that were at issue in the IPR petitions to prove invalidity in the ITC.
In a recent order highlighting the relative ease with which foreign respondents can be served at the ITC, ALJ Cheney granted leave for Complainant to personally serve certain foreign Respondents because the ITC was unable to successfully serve those Respondents.
In a recently issued pair of orders, ALJ Lord denied both Respondents’ and Complainants’ motions in limine to exclude certain expert testimony based on concerns regarding qualifications and admissibility because there was no danger of jury confusion.