Articles Tagged: patent litigation


Okta Files IPR2026-00327 at the PTAB: A New Challenge to an Identity and Access Patent

Okta, Inc. has launched a new Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding,IPR2026-00327, filed on April 6, 2026. The petition places another technology-focused patent dispute before the PTAB and is one that in-house IP teams, patent litigators, and counsel following the identity and access management space will want to watch closely.

At this early stage, the publicly available docket identifiesOkta, Inc.as the petitioner in an inter partes review, but the full petition and supporting papers will be the key source for confirming thespecific patent being challenged, thepatent owner, and the exactclaims at issue. As is typical in PTAB practice, the petition is expected to lay out the challenged claims, identify the real parties in interest, and present the unpatentability theories based on prior art patents and printed publications.

Inter partes review is a targeted vehicle for attacking issued patent claims under35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In practical terms, that means the grounds for review in this case will likely turn on whether Okta contends the challenged claims areanticipatedby a single reference orobviousin view of combinations of prior art.

SCOTUS Patent Cases to Know for 2017


As we approach the end of 2016, it’s a good time to look ahead to the cases that may have a significant impact on patent law in the coming year. Here is a preview of some of the important patent decisions on the Supreme Court’s docket for 2017.


Over the last 15 years, the Federal Circuit has continued to expand the scope of the extraterritorial effect of U.S. patent law.

SCOTUS Sides With Samsung

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in favor of Samsung in their ongoing case against Apple over design patent damages. The Court’s decision reversed an earlier ruling by the Federal Circuit that awarded Apple $399 million in damages.

The central argument in the case was over the language of 35 U.S.C. §289, which stated that a defendant found infringing on a patented “article of manufacture” was “liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit.” See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2016).

The court held that the term “article of manufacture” should not necessarily be construed to mean only an end product sold to consumers, but could also be construed more broadly to mean infringing components of a product.

Topics

Recent