1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

PTAB Not Required to Review All Patent Claims Challenged in IPR Petition

Feb 11, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Rachel J. Elsby

Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, Corp., C. A. No. 14-1516, 14-1530 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016) 

Share This Insight

Categories

Federal CircuitPatent Trial & Appeal BoardInter Partes Review

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents....

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation
pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)....

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of
products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district....

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal
of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims
were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an
attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family....

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of
the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug
product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and
the related statutory context....

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition
challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged
claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims....

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the
Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel
litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied....

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a
parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB
would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in
view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation....

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.