IPR Estoppel Strikes Again

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

Wasica Finance GmbH et al. v. Schrader Int’l, Inc. et al., C.A. 13-1353-LPS (D. Del. January 14, 2020) (publicly available on January 21, 2020).

Plaintiffs Wasica and Bluearc (collectively “Wasica”) filed an infringement action based on U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 against defendants (collectively “Schrader”). The patent pertained to devices for measuring the air pressure in tires. Continue reading “IPR Estoppel Strikes Again”

IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020)

On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on remand a partially-instituted IPR decision with directions to fully institute the IPR on all petitioned grounds. Instead of fully instituting the IPR, the PTAB declined to institute the IPR at all. Petitioner appealed, and the Federal Circuit dismissed. Continue reading “IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2”

Vacatur and Remand Is Not for Everyone

Customedia Tech., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.., Appeal Nos. 2018-2239, -2240, -2310, 2019-1000, -1001, -1002, -1027 and -1029 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 1, 2019).

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

The day after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 31, 2019), the Federal Circuit issued a pair of precedential orders in appeals of inter partes reviews and covered business method reviews.  Appellant Customedia Tech sought to avail itself of the Arthrex decision to have adverse decisions vacated on the grounds that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board was constituted in a manner that violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Continue reading “Vacatur and Remand Is Not for Everyone”