In a recently issued order, ALJ McNamara relied on her Ground Rules to require the parties to focus on their best theories by limiting the number of asserted claims and the number of prior art references relied upon for invalidity.
A recent decision from the ITC highlights the difficulties that can arise with the enforcement of a Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) and how the inclusion of a certification provision in an LEO can be used to permit importation of non-infringing redesigns.
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.