Stay updated with breaking news from Facebook Iprs. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Facebook filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against claims 1–8 of Uniloc 2017 LLC’s patent on Voice over Internet Protocol. Meanwhile, an IPR proceeding was already pending on...
The Federal Circuit's recent Uniloc 2017 v. Facebook Inc. decision is a mixed bag of good and bad news for both patent owners and inter partes review petitioners. On the plus side for patent owners (but not for petitioners), the Federal Circuit determined that the so-called "No Appeal" provision does not necessarily apply to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), and, therefore, a patent owner may still appeal a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that a petitioner is not estopped from maintaining an IPR under § 315(e)(1). However, the Federal Circuit also provided petitioners with good news, rul...
Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc. , Appeal Nos. 2019-1688, -1689 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021) In this week’s Case of the Week, Uniloc appealed from two consolidated IPR decisions finding multiple claims unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed, addressing several discrete issues. It first addressed the foremost issue of “whether 35 U.S.C § 314(d)’s ‘No Appeal’ provision bars this court’s review of the Board’s conclusion that under § 315(e)(1) a petitioner is not estopped from maintaining the IPR proceeding before it.” Next, the Court addressed multiple challe...
On March 9, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the no-appeal provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not preclude appellate review of the PTAB’s estoppel...
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. As I have written about previously (articles here and here ), there is a growing body of case law defining the issues that are, and are not, appealable after the PTAB determines to institute an IPR. What's not appealable includes, for example, the PTAB's determination as to whether an IPR petition meets 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)'s sufficiency requirement; whether, under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), the PTAB appropriately instituted an IPR notwithstanding a real-party-in-interest (RPI) dispute; ...