RadIP Breaks Intel’s Winning Streak Before PTAB in Securing Denial of IPR Institution on Behalf of the Institute of Microelectronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IMECAS)
April 2, 2019. RadIP is thrilled to announce that it has broken Intel’s winning streak of 37 straight IPR institution victories before the PTAB (USPTO) this year. We are even more thrilled for our client, Institute of Microelectronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IMECAS), who has made substantial investment into patenting important integrated circuit advancements. A copy of the PTAB’s decision can be found here.
Sometimes engaging specialists from boutique law firms that can exploit holes in an IPR petition carries the day against Big Law. This is not the first time we defeated Big Law in convincing the PTAB to deny institution of a client’s IPR. If a major IPR has been filed against your patent, and you are evaluating who is in the best position to help defeat a worthy adversary, feel free to reach out to us.
RadIP Secures Federal Circuit Appellate Win Against Philips Lighting on Behalf of WAC Lighting
April 20, 2018. RadIP secured an appellate win at the Federal Circuit affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s prior determination that all petitioned claims of Philips’ U.S. Patent No. 6,013,988 were invalid. In its Opinion, the Federal Circuit rejected Philips’ arguments that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the prior art or have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The Federal Circuit rejected Philips’ argument that the PTAB relied on a “broad notion of ‘design choice’” but instead “insisted on reviewing the context-specific evidence for the soundness of that rationale in the particular circumstances of this review.” Opinion at 8. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that changing the order of the components “was an obvious matter of design choice because the two designs were known in the art, recognized as solutions to the particular problem, and functionally equivalent.” Id. at 9. The Federal Circuit further rejected Philips’ argument that an identification of a specific “affirmative reason” to make this obvious design choice, finding that Philips was “demanding too much,” as the findings were enough for a skilled artisan to choose either of two possible arrangements of familiar circuit elements. Id. at 10-11.
EdisonReport reported on RadIP’s win here.
RadIP Victory Strengthens Privacy Protections for Litigation Funding Arrangements
February 1, 2018. RadIP obtained a significant victory on behalf of its client Lambeth Magnetic Structures (“LMS”) in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and for the protection of litigation funding information, following Judge Cathy Bissoon’s denial of Defendants Seagate and Western Digital’s motion to compel LMS’s pre-suit communications with litigation funding organizations. In her decision—which is notably heavily redacted to reflect the protections the firm secured for its client—Judge Bissoon found all of the information sought by Seagate and Western Digital protected by the work-product privilege in anticipation of litigation. Judge Bissoon rejected the Defendants’ arguments in finding that even if litigation funding arrangements were non-legal in nature, “the materials would nonetheless fall within work-product immunity because they were communications with Plaintiff’s agents and in anticipation of litigation.”
As noted by Reuters, defendants often push for disclosure of litigation funding details, but RadIP’s victory puts an arrow in the quiver for defendants fighting to protect these details as privileged.