Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 JANUARY 2018

PTAB Relies On Priority Analysis In A Related Proceeding In Denying IPR

Akin
Akin
Contributor
Akin

Akin

Akin is a global law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers and advisors who pride themselves on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Akin

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR), holding that the patent at issue had an effective filing date antedating the primary prior art reference.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR), holding that the patent at issue had an effective filing date antedating the primary prior art reference. The petitioners–ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o. (collectively, "ESET")–filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the "'086 Patent"). ESET concurrently moved for joinder with FireEye, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444 (the "01444 proceeding"), which also challenged the '086 Patent. The '086 Patent is directed to systems and methods of protecting computers from malicious operations controlled by remotely operable code. The '086 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the "'926 Patent"), which was the subject of Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00145 (the "00145 proceeding").

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