Inter Partes Review Proceedings (IPRs) Do Not Violate Article III of the Constitution per U.S. Supreme Court

By Jonathan L. Kennedy

The U.S. Supreme held in a 7-2 decision (Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts dissenting), Oil States Energy Servs. V. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, that the Inter Partes Review proceedings, commonly referred to as IPRs, do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. The Court was deciding two primary constitutional challenges: (1) whether IPRs violate […]

Constitutionality of Inter Partes Reviews: A Look at Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Oil States

The enactment of the AIA in 2011, inter partes review (IPR), has been available as a method to challenge the validity of a patent in the US Patent and Trademark Office. A total of 6139 IPR petitions (92% of all petitions) have been filed with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) since that time. […]

Say What You Will About Trademarks

Simon Tam chose to name his band “The Slants” with the intent to reclaim the term and erase the denigrating connotations associated with it. However, he was confronted with the denial of his trademark application based on the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act. This raised an interesting issue of whether the disparagement clause violates […]

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Where Patent Infringement Defendants Can be Sued

In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the locations that patent infringement suits can be brought against a defendant, i.e., venue for the lawsuit.  Proper venue is established by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as the place where (1) the defendant resides or (2) where the defendant has […]

Supreme Court Upholds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation and No Review for Institution in PTAB Proceedings

The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the case of In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. In re Cuozzo initially began as an inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) where Garmin challenged the validity of Cuozzo’s patent relating to an interface that uses GPS technology to display a […]

Supreme Court Issues Decision on Treble Damages

On the subject of willful infringement, 35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that, “[T]he court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.‚¬ On its face, the statute allows for broad discretion by the district courts, but the Federal Circuit set out a stricter standard for awarding of enhanced damages, as […]

Supreme Court Revisits Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Copyright Cases

Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard oral arguments addressing the relevant standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in cases involving copyright law. The Court’s ruling, expected later this spring, will likely have a significant impact on copyright litigation cases. Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a district court “may”award a reasonable attorney’s fee […]

Tracking the Mayo Effect: Study Examines Personalized Medicine Patent Applications after SCOTUS Decision

The US Supreme Court decided Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. in 2012, effectively redefining the scope of patent eligible subject matter, particularly with respect to biotechnology and personalized medicine. Subsequent decisions by the Court in Myriad and Alice have confirmed what many prognosticators had predicted: a wide-spread broadening of the judicially-created exceptions to patent […]

Supreme Court to Review Willful Infringement Standard in Light of Octane Fitness

In the 2014 case of Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness, the Supreme Court overruled Federal Circuit jurisprudence and provided a flexible framework for district courts to grant attorney’s fees in “exceptional cases”under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Court reasoned that requiring a prevailing party to show “material inappropriate conduct”or that a case was […]

Supreme Court Weighs in on Belief of Patent Invalidity and Induced Infringement

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a party can be held liable for infringement of a patent under in a number of different ways. The most common liability is for direct, literal infringement of the patent, meaning that accused party actually practices every element of the asserted patent claim(s). The statute also includes provisions for liability based on […]