COVID-19 has taken an unprecedented toll on the United States and the world at large.  It has impacted nearly every facet of both professional and personal life and, with that, the patent landscape, too—especially as it pertains to the interplay between in-person events (trials, hearings, depositions and the like) and the need for “social distancing.”
 

On March 5, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an Opinion granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on patent-ineligible subject matter.  CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01041-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 5, 2020).  The Court rejected plaintiff’s law-of-the-case argument and held that the claim-at-issue failed the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice test, and was therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.
 

On March 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an Opinion affirming a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case Nos. 2018-2239, 2019-1000, ____ F.3d ____ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020).  The CAFC held that the PTAB correctly found that the challenged patent claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they were directed to patent ineligible subject matter, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).

On February 19, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning the notice requirement for collecting back-damages in cases of patent infringement.  Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc., ___ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2020).  In particular, the CAFC found that the statutory patent marking requirement continues to limit damages after a patentee or licensee ceases sales of unmarked products, and that willful infringement does not establish actual notice under the statute.  35 U.S.C. § 287. 
 

On February 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a writ of mandamus, ordering the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement suit filed there against Google LLC (“Google”).  In re Google LLC, No. 2019-126, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Feb, 13, 2020).  Applying In re Cray, CAFC found that the EDTX lacked venue under the 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
 

On January 7, 2020, Magistrate Judge Christopher Burke of the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaims of unenforceability based on the doctrine of infectious unenforceability.  Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Medicine, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 343 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2020).  The Court found defendants’ allegations supported the existence of an “immediate and necessary” relation between plaintiff’s alleged concealment of the true inventorship of certain earlier-issued patents and enforcement of the patent at issue in the counterclaims.

On January 30, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the a final decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that appellant’s patent claims are unpatentable.  Koninklijke Philips NV v. Google LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2020).  While the CAFC ruled that the PTAB lacked the discretion to institute review inter partes review (IPR) based on grounds not presented in an IPR petition, it affirmed the PTAB’s obviousness decision based on a ground that was contained in appellee’s petition.
 

On January 14, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a ruling on a motion to compel documents withheld as being privileged, containing attorney work product, and subject to the common interest doctrine.  Beijing Choice Elec. Tech. Co. v. Contec Med. Sys. USA, Inc., slip op. (N.D. Ill. Jan 14, 2020).  The Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the motion.

On January 6, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judgment in an inter partes examination (IPR) of a U.S. patent.  Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Appeal No. 2019-1234 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2020) (nonprecedential).  The CAFC applied the obvious-to-try inquiry and found that the claims were obvious.

On December 27, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming the decision of invalidity on obviousness grounds of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2019).  The CAFC found no clear error in the district court’s reliance on inherency in its analysis or in its factual findings.

On Thursday, December 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing a final determination and vacating exclusion orders from the International Trade Commission (ITC) against appellant garage door opener importers.  Techtronic Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, —F.3d— (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2019).  The CAFC held that the ITC erred in its claim construction, and confirmed that, where a patentee consistently describes an invention as having a particular feature, the patentee’s claims must be construed as including that feature. 

On December 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating-in-part, reversing-in-part and remanding for further proceedings the decision and order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California imposing “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) rates in a binding worldwide license between an owner of certain standard-essential patents (SEPs) and a manufacturer of mobile devices that implement technology covered by the SEPs.  TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, F.3d (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court deprived the SEP owner of its right to a jury trial when the district court decided from the bench to impose a term of the FRAND license that was—in substance—compensatory relief for the mobile phone manufacturer’s past wrongful acts.
 

On November 15, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a decision by the United States District for the District of Delaware granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on patent-ineligible subject matter.  Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2019).  The CAFC held that the claims-at-issue are directed to a non-abstract improvement in the functionality of an existing technological process, and thus, the claims passed muster under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
 

On November 8, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated the judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversing the patent examiner’s rejection of new claims presented by Firepass Corp. (Firepass) in an inter partes reexamination of a U.S. patent.  Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., __ F.3d __, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019).  The CAFC found that the PTAB erred in its analysis of analogous art.
 

On November 7, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decision finding invalidity on obviousness grounds.  Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. TCL Corp. et al., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the PTAB did not abuse its discretion in admitting late-submitted evidence regarding the public availability of a foreign publication and in finding that the foreign publication was available as prior art.

On October 30, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Liqwd, Inc.’s patent claims are unpatentable as obvious.  Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the PTAB erred in concluding that evidence of copying the patented invention was legally irrelevant.
 

On October 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the finding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Koninklijke Philips N.V.’s patent claims are not unpatentable.  Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., __ Fed. Appx. __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the PTAB correctly found that Google failed to meet its burden of establishing that the claims were unpatentable as anticipated and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the PTAB to decline to consider Google’s untimely, backup obviousness argument.
 

On October 17, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated the judgement of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the ground that the defendant had a valid license to the patents-in-suit.  Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2019).  The CAFC found that the license defense could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss because the license was ambiguous, and remanded to the district court. 
 

On October 3, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).  PayPal, Inc. v. IOENGINE LLC, IPR Case No. IPR2019-00884, Paper 22 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2019).  The PTAB exercised its statutorily-authorized discretion to deny institution based primarily on a customer-supplier relationship between the instant petitioner and a prior petitioner.
 

On October 3, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the patent-ineligibility judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.  Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court properly granted summary judgment that a patent directed to methods for manufacturing propshafts with liners capable of simultaneously damping two modes of vibrations was patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On September 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding certain patent claims eligible for covered-business-method-patent (“CBM”) review.  SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. September 25, 2019).  The CAFC remanded to the PTAB for further consideration of the statutory “technical invention” exception to CBM eligibility.

On September 18, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the jurisdictional finding of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  Inspired Development Group, LLC v. Inspired Products Group, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the parties’ claims did not arise under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).

On September 9, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office designated two decisions as precedential.  Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR Case No. IPR2018-000224, Paper 18 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) (designated: Sept. 9, 2019); General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation, IPR Case No. IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (designated: Sept. 9, 2019).  In Infiltrator Water, the PTAB held that a dismissal of a complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction does not reset the one-year time bar for a petitioner to file a petition for inter partes review.  In General Electric, the PTAB denied institution where the patent owner disclaimed the challenged claims.

On August 29, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a January 31, 2019 decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., Case IPR2018-01511 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2019) (Paper 11).  The PTAB found that 35 U.S.C. § 315(a) bars a patent challenger from challenging a patent at the PTAB more than one year after filing a declaratory judgement (“DJ”) action in district court challenging the same patent, even if the patent challenger voluntarily withdrew the DJ action without prejudice.

On August 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.  MyMail, Ltd. V. ooVoo, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2019).  The CAFC held that the district court erred by declining to resolve a claim construction dispute prior to its ruling that the patents asserted by plaintiff MyMail are directed to unpatentable subject matter.

On August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion dismissing three related appeals, each challenging the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to terminate an inter partes review (IPR). Biodelivery Scis. Int’l v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2019).  The CAFC found that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars it from reviewing the PTAB’s decision, even though the PTAB had previously issued a final written decision of patentability in each IPR.

On August 12, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding the obviousness finding of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).  MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the PTAB’s claim construction on which its obviousness finding was premised was incorrect because the construction conflated corresponding structure in the patent’s specification with a structural definition for the term, instead of construing the term as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.  

On August 2, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office designated as precedential two Decisions on Institution.  Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripts Prods. Inc., IPR Case Nos. IPR2019-00064, -00065, -00085, Paper 10 (PTAB May 1, 2019) (designated: Aug. 2, 2019); Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B Braun Melsungen AG, Case No. IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (designated: Aug. 2, 2019).  In Valve, the PTAB held that General Plastic factor 1—concerning discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for “follow-on” petitions—applied to a joined petitioner.  In Becton, Dickinson, the PTAB delineated a list of factors to consider when determining whether to exercise its discretion to deny a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) where “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Board.”

On July 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a decision of the District Court for the District of Delaware dismissing a patent-infringement complaint for failure to state a claim.  Amgen Inc. v. Computer Biosciences. Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. July 29, 2019).  The CAFC affirmed the District Court’s application of the doctrine of argument-based estoppel and held that the patent owner could not succeed on its infringement claim.

On July 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) made public an opinion affirming a district court’s sua sponte summary judgment that design patents covering the hood and headlamps of Ford’s F-150 truck are not invalid for claiming functional features.  Automotive Body Parts Assoc. v. Ford Global Techs., LLC, ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2019).  The CAFC rejected arguments that the aesthetic appeal of replacement parts that match the original equipment makes the designs functional.  The CAFC also rejected an argument for a design-patent-specific exception to the permissible-repair doctrine.

On Monday, July 15, 2019, the International Trade Commission (ITC) issued the public version of an opinion affirming in part an initial determination issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dee Lord.  In re Certain Road Construction Machines and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1088,—Fed. Reg.—(July 15, 2019).  The ITC affirmed the ALJ’s determination that asserted patent claims directed to automated paving machines were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and therefore invalid.

On July 10, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion dismissing for lack of standing an appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) decision finding certain patent claims not unpatentable.  General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the patent challenger lacked standing to appeal the adverse decision even though, among other things, it is a direct competitor of the patent owner.

On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review (IPR) is an appealable decision.

On June 14, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions declining to dismiss petitions for inter partes review (IPR).  Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corp. et al., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar IPR of state-owned patents.

On May 23rd, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review (IPR) unpatentability decision.  Papst Licensing GmbH v. Samsung Elec. Am. Inc., __ F.3d __(Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that claim-construction and prior-art rulings in an earlier IPR created issue preclusion barring the patent owner from contesting those issues in the appeal of a later IPR.

On May 21, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing a summary judgment of patent invalidity granted by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.  Quest Integrity USA, LLC, v. Cokebusters USA Inc., __ F.3d__ (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court abused its discretion and wrongly applied the sham-affidavit doctrine when it disregarded affidavits submitted by the patent owner, and that those affidavits created a material issue of disputed fact and should have blocked summary judgment.

On May 13, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion on an appeal from a Final Written Decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., __ F.3d__ (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019).  The CAFC held that the appellant, AVX, lacked standing to appeal the decision and therefore dismissed the appeal.

On May 1, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a grant of attorney’s fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.  Thermolife Int’l LLC et al. v. GNC Corp. et al., __ F.3d__ (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court had correctly decided that the (consolidated) cases were exceptional under § 285 because plaintiffs failed to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation and because they engaged in a pattern of bringing suit against numerous defendants without carefully reviewing their claims.

On April 22, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) made public its Final Written Decision on the patentability of challenged claims in a covered business method patent review (CBM) proceeding.  Fidelity Information Services, LLC v. Mirror Imaging, LLC, CBM Case No. CBM2017-00064 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2019).  The PTAB held the challenged claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, consistent with the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).

On April 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.  Versatop Support Sys. v. Georgia Expo, Inc., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. April 19, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court had incorrectly found no infringement based on the “use in commerce” requirement of the Lanham Act.

On April 5, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office designated as “Informative” two prior decisions relating to the PTAB’s discretion about whether to institute inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings for trial.  In each, the PTAB exercised its discretion to deny institution of an IPR proceeding, even though the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on some claims.

On April 1, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. True Health Diagnostics, —F. App’x—, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the district court had correctly decided that the asserted claims are invalid as patent ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

On March 18, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office designated as precedential a Decision on Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing.  Amazon.com, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR Case No. IPR2017-00948 (PTAB Jan. 18, 2019).  The PTAB held that, while a Petitioner may only challenge patent claims in an inter partes review based on prior art patents and publications under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, it is nonetheless proper to consider patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for any proposed substitute claims.

On Monday, March 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming a dismissal of the plaintiff’s copyright claim. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. ____ (2019). The Supreme Court held that a copyright plaintiff may not commence a lawsuit until after the Register of Copyrights officially registers the copyright.

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion affirming a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Company, —F.3d— (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2019). The CAFC ruled that the district court had correctly decided that the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.


On February 14, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing and remanding a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment of invalidity for lack of written description.  CenTrak, Inc. v. Sonitor Techs., Inc., —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether it was necessary to disclose in the patent specification particular implementation details to satisfy the written description requirement.

On February 13, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion vacating covered-business-method review (CBM) decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, —F.App’x—, (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2019).  The CAFC ruled that the challenged patents were not eligible for CBM review because they were for “technological inventions.”

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019, Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the request of defendant Presidio Components, Inc., (the “Company”) to supplement its invalidity contentions.  American Technical Ceramics Corp. et al. v. Presidio Components, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-6544 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019).  Judge Matsumoto determined that the Company was statutorily estopped from raising invalidity grounds that it did not include in its petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and, thus barred the Company from supplementing its invalidity contentions in the subsequent district court proceeding. 

On Thursday, January 24, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a decision exercising its statutorily authorized discretion to deny institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR).  Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR Case No. 2018-01310 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019).  The PTAB determined that instituting IPR would be an inefficient use of the PTAB’s finite resources because the petitioner had shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its invalidity challenges with respect to only two of the twenty-three challenged claims as to one of the four grounds.
 

On January 22, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the “on sale” bar.  Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 586 U.S., case no. 17-1229.  The Supreme Court held that a commercial sale to a third party may still place the invention “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of the AIA, even if the third party was required to keep confidential the details of the invention.