Fish & Richardson - News and Alerts
page,page-id-1160,page-template-default,logged-in,admin-bar,no-customize-support,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,select-theme-ver-3.5.2,menu-animation-underline,smooth_scroll,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-,vc_responsive

News & Events


December 11, 2017

Oral Arguments Summary: Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 27, 2017, in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, where the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Court’s comments suggested that its decision will be closely divided but IPR’s constitutionality will likely be upheld.

December 4, 2017

PTAB Issues New Procedures for Remands from the CAFC

On November 16, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board amended its standard operating procedures and issued new guidance for parties as to what happens after the Federal Circuit remands a case.  Prior to this guidance, PTAB panels were left to create ad-hoc procedures in consultation with the parties when the CAFC remanded a case.  Now, the PTAB has issued a standardized set of guidelines creating a uniform procedure for how remands will be dealt with in the future.

September 19, 2017

Fish & Richardson Named 2017 General Patent Litigation Firm of the Year, Inter Partes Review Firm of the Year, and IP Boutique Firm of the Year by LMG Life Sciences

Fish & Richardson announced today that it was named 2017 General Patent Litigation Firm of the Year, Inter Partes Review Firm of the Year, and Intellectual Property Boutique Firm of the Year by LMG Life Sciences. The awards recognized the strongest legal work in life sciences over the past year.

September 5, 2017

Inadequacy of PTAB’s Procedures for Reviewing Late-Submitted Evidence Leads to Vacatur

Fed Cir vacates IPR determination of obviousness/anticipation. The PTAB abused its discretion by denying Ultratec’s request to supplement the record with trial testimony by CaptionCall’s expert, made during co-pending litigation, that were inconsistent with statements the expert had made during the IPR. The opinion discusses how admission/review of the expert’s statements would have imposed little burden on the PTAB, and discusses how the PTAB’s procedures for requesting supplementation of the record have the effect of denying the Board any opportunity to actually know the content of the requested supplementation before ruling on the motion.

August 21, 2017

Athena Automation IPR decision rejecting equitable defense of assignor estoppel in IPR proceedings designated precedential by the PTAB

On August 2, 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated Section II.A. of the Institution Decision in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290, Paper 18 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2013) as precedential. The designated portion of this case finds that the doctrine of assignor estoppel does not apply to inter partes review proceedings. This is only the 10th AIA post-grant proceeding identified as precedential.

Fill out the form below to receive our monthly newsletter and updates on your selected areas of interest. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.