InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 25
Posts 2552
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/06/2009

Re: None

Tuesday, 10/16/2018 1:45:54 PM

Tuesday, October 16, 2018 1:45:54 PM

Post# of 46499
Just a few other recent posts about the case,

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-circuit-clarifies-burden-of-68115/

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ptab-strategies-and-insights-september-99697/

Bungie also briefly argued that issue preclusion applies in this case because Worlds previously argued unsuccessfully that Activision was a real party in interest in other IPRs filed by Bungie on the other three patents asserted by Worlds against Activision. But because neither party devoted significant space in the briefs to this issue and the Board did not consider issue preclusion, the Court declined to address this issue: “In this case, such a limited record is insufficient for this court to decide, for the first time on appeal, whether issue preclusion should apply to this unusual set of facts.” The Court indicated, however, that the Board should address this issue on remand.

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/09/14/ipr-petitioner-bears-burden-real-parties-interest-listed-petitions-not-time-barred/id=101354/

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent WDDD News