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.
While it is uncommon for the ITC to permit the addition of defenses late into an investigation, in the right circumstances, ALJs may make an exception. In this investigation, Chief ALJ Bullock permitted Respondents to add the defense of inequitable conduct in prosecuting the asserted patents almost nine months after the investigation had been instituted.
In a long-awaited decision, a split panel of the Federal Circuit confirmed on May 1, 2019, that the Court has ordinary appellate jurisdiction to review the non-institution decision as a “final decision” by the ITC under § 1295(a)(6).