In January 2013, Petitioner IBS filed a petition for IPR.  Five months later, IBS filed a second petition for IPR on the same patent claims.  The follow-on petition relied on…

Petitioner Unilever filed an earlier petition for IPR of 33 claims of a patent.  In the Decision on Institution, the Board denied review of 11 claims and granted review of…

Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent.  Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the…

Petitioner Medtronic had previously filed two other petitions for IPR of a patent. The Board instituted trial on one of the petitions and denied the other. Medtronic then filed a…

In this inter partes review proceeding, the challenged patent, filed in July 2011, purported to be a continuation of a parent application filed in September 2009.  Petitioner PRISM argued the…

Authors: Diane M. Reed and Diana Wade Publication: World Trademark Review Daily Excerpt: In Target Brands Inc v Artificer Life Corp (Opposition Nos 91206421 and 91206422), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board…

By: Brent M. Dougal In the ongoing Apple v. Samsung litigation, Apple won a $1 billion jury verdict against Samsung. The verdict was largely based on Apple’s design patents for the iPhone. Though the amount was…

By: Robb Roby, Partner in the Orange County office Yesterday the Supreme Court issued the Aereo opinion and decided that, given its activities, Aereo is substantially similar to a cable…

The third step in bringing your medical device to market is to understand whether you can practice your invention. By Gerard von Hoffmann and Bryan Wahl This article is part three of a…

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. – What You Need to Know Today the Supreme Court ruled that streaming broadcast television signals to subscribers without paying for the programs…