Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 AUGUST 2015

In Seeking Patent Review, Timing Matters

The patents-at-issue related to online methods for coordinating containerized shipping. In 2011, the appellant's parent company filed suit in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid.

United StatesIntellectual Property

GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc.

Clarifying the "final written decision" rule in covered business method (CBM) reviews, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB or Board) decision to terminate a CBM proceeding was not appealable because the Board's decision did not address the validity of the patents. GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., Case Nos. 15-1349; -1350; -1352 and -1353 (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2015) (Taranto, J.).

The patents-at-issue related to online methods for coordinating containerized shipping. In 2011, the appellant's parent company filed suit in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid. While that case was pending, the appellant petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a CBM review of the asserted patents.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from