GE goes after United Technologies via IPR route
At the end of a story at Bloomberg titled GE Wins Shot at Voiding Pratt Patent in Jet-Engine Clash one finds text about IPR challenges by GE against United Technologies:
GE submitted additional petitions challenging more Pratt patents in April, and even more on June 28. Those cases are pending an initial review by the agency.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where the petitions were filed, has become known as a “death squad” for patents because of the high rate of rejection. It’s easier to invalidate a patent at the agency than in district court because different standards are used. The Supreme Court on June 20 upheld the review process used by the agency.
Obviously, these challenges are not about dubious software patents.
Also, IAM Media wrote in January 2016
But to what extent is the system truly working as it should to provide an efficient and cost effective way of challenging patent validity? It seems unlikely that any of the authors of the America Invents Act (AIA) foresaw those companies with the deepest pockets filing challenge after challenge against patent owners.
Although IAM noted there was some "justice" in NPEs getting attacked by multiple IPR filings, one recalls productive companies can be victims of IPRs filed by NPEs.
In August 2015, IPBiz wrote of the denial of the Kyle Bass petition against Acorda's MS symptom drug Ampyra in the post
The IPR petitions of Kyle Bass on Acorda/Ampyra denied by PTAB . That related to IPR2015-00720 and IPR2015-00817. But Kyle Bass won the next time around in IPR2015-01850. The first time around Bass failed to convince PTAB that a certain poster session was prior art.
The second time around Bass succeeded in convincing PTAB that Acorda's S-1 statement of 26 Sept. 2003 was prior art.