skip to Main Content
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Search
Open Mobile Menu

Thomas Horstemeyer Secures Victory in Federal Circuit Decision Finding that the PTAB Misapplied the “Pertinent-Problem” Test for Analogous Art

  • November 11, 2020
  • Robert Gravois

In a victory secured by Thomas Horstemeyer for its client, Donner Technology, the Federal Circuit has ruled in a precedential decision that the PTAB erred in finding that a prior art reference did not constitute analogous art. As a result,…

Read More→

Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB’s Validity Finding Based On Arguments the Patent Owner Did Not Raise

  • August 18, 2020
  • Robert Gravois

The Federal Circuit held in FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC that the PTAB did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act when it found that the Petitioner failed to prove a claim obvious based on arguments the Patent Owner had…

Read More→

On Remand, Federal Circuit Rejects Wi-Fi One’s Time-Bar Arguments

  • April 23, 2018
  • Robert Gravois

The Federal Circuit holds that the Board did not err in deciding several issues relating to whether a party was time-barred from petitioning for IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). As discussed in an earlier post, the Federal Circuit in Wi-Fi…

Read More→

Thomas | Horstemeyer Secures Victory at the Federal Circuit in Appeal of IPR Remand Decision

  • March 20, 2018
  • Robert Gravois

As reported by Law360, Thomas | Horstemeyer has secured another victory at the Federal Circuit in the second appeal for the IPR proceeding styled Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00440. Andrew Crain and Robert Gravois represented the patent owner…

Read More→

Federal Circuit’s Claim Construction Results in Issue Preclusion for an IPR of a Related Patent

  • March 14, 2018
  • Robert Gravois

The Federal Circuit held that its previous reversal of the Board's claim construction resulted in issue preclusion for similar claim terms in a different IPR of a related patent. The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also called issue preclusion, is a…

Read More→

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Construction for Declining to Apply Prosecution Disclaimer

  • February 22, 2018
  • Robert Gravois

The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB erred by declining to apply the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer in an IPR. If, during prosecution of a patent, the patent applicant makes a clear and unambiguous statement limiting the scope of the…

Read More→
About the Author

Robert Gravois is a partner at Thomas | Horstemeyer LLP with extensive experience in patent office proceedings, including inter partes review (IPR), covered business method (CBM), reexamination, and interference proceedings. He has represented clients in proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in federal district courts throughout the country, and at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Learn more.

About the Firm

Thomas | Horstemeyer LLP is a nationally recognized intellectual property law firm headquartered in Atlanta with approximately 40 attorneys and patent agents serving clients all over the world. The firm offers services in all areas in intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights. All of Thomas | Horstemeyer’s attorneys and patent agents have technical backgrounds, with many holding advanced masters and doctorate degrees in their respective technical fields. Learn more.

Categories
  • 35 U.S.C. 315(b) (1)
  • 35 USC 315(e) (1)
  • 35 USC 325(d) (4)
  • Additional Discovery (2)
  • Administrative Procedure Act (2)
  • Claim Construction (5)
  • Collateral Estoppel (1)
  • En banc (1)
  • Estoppel (2)
  • Evidence (1)
  • Expanded Panel (1)
  • Federal Circuit (6)
  • Fees (1)
  • Informative Opinion (2)
  • Motion to Amend (1)
  • Motion to Exclude (1)
  • Printed Publication (1)
  • Prior Art (4)
  • Procedural Issues (1)
  • Proposed Rule (3)
  • Sanctions (1)
  • Scope of Reply (1)
  • Sovereign Immunity (2)
  • Supreme Court (2)
  • Time Bar (2)
  • Uncategorized (2)
© 2017-2020 Robert Gravois. All rights reserved. | Disclaimer
Back To Top