In a precedential decision that issued on May 19, ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the Supreme Court’s recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest. recent Click-to-Call decision precludes judicial review of decisions by the PTAB concerning real-parties-in-interest.
Read MoreIntel’s lawsuit takes aim at a new aspect of PAEs. That aspect is patent aggregation. Intel and Apple, two big-tech companies, are seeking a court ruling that would essentially hold that the very act of aggregating patents can give rise to antitrust violations. The implications of that could redound far beyond the alleged scourge of “patent trolls.” Indeed, the real targets of Intel’s lawsuit are not PAEs, but rather startups.
Read MoreThe American University Law Review recently published a very timely and compelling article on the intersection between the Hatch-Waxman Act and the BPCIA, on the one hand, and post-grant proceedings at the PATB, on the other. The article, which is titled, Ships in the Night: Resolving Administrative Conflict Between FDA- and Patent-Related Legislation, American Univ. Law Review [Vol. 68:1111], (hereinafter, “Garcia & Stroud”), is authored by Carlos A. Garcia, Patent Counsel, Eli Lilly & Company, and Jonathan Stroud, Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents Inc. The article is a comprehensive and thorough overview of how petitions for inter partes review and other post-grant proceedings may be impacting efficient resolution of patent issues for generic drugs.
Read MoreIntel recently sued Fortress for antitrust violations based upon its alleged monopolistic aggregation of patents. Intel’s allegations mirror those by Capital One against Intellectual Ventures, which were recently rejected by the Federal Circuit. Over the past several years, any patent assertion has had to contend with certain expected defenses: Alice, IPRs, threats of Octane Fitness. Are antitrust counterclaims the next trend?
Read MoreThe PTAB has issued its first post-AIT decision, Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC. In Realtime, the Patent Owner sought to defeat institution by arguing that Unified has run afoul of the AIT decision by failing to identify all RPIs, namely, its members. The PTAB disagreed and instituted Unified’s IPR. (The institution decision was entered in October, but the redacted decision issued on November 27, 2018). How do we square the AIT decision with the Realtime decision? Will third-party filers, such as Unified and RPX, no longer face RPI issues?
Read MoreUnified Patents recently released statistics on patent lawsuit filings. The statistics show patent filings to be trending downwards fairly significantly from a peak in 2015. Yet, the statistics also show that the individual inventor, asserting his or her own patent, is behind many patent suits. Does that matter?
Read MoreThe Federal Circuit recently issued a strong decision instructing the PTAB to rethink the way that it decides who is an RPI (real-party-in-interest). While the decision involved RPX, it presents a more existential threat to Unified Patents, which has risen as one of the most prolific non-party filers of IPRs. Can Unified survive the CAFC’s RPX decision?
Read More