Photo of Erin Short

Erin Short is an associate in the Litigation Department and member of the Patent Law Group.

Erin graduated from UCLA School of Law, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and earned Moot Court Honors.  She received Masin Family Academic Excellence Gold Awards for the highest grades in Legal Research & Writing, Remedies, and Introduction to Federal Income Tax. While in law school, Erin served as a Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review and co-Chief Managing Editor of the UCLA Journal of Law & Technology. She also worked as a research assistant and participated in the UCLA-UC Hastings Startup Legal Garage clinic.

Recently, in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., the Federal Circuit held for the first time that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) has the authority to issue a Final Written Decision even after the statutory deadline has passed.

Congress introduced post grant review (“PGR”) and inter partes review (“IPR”) in 2011 as part of the America Invents Act (AIA). Parties can use these processes to ask the Board to review the patentability of a patent’s claims. Under the AIA, the Board must provide a Final Written Decision within one year of instituting the PGR or IPR; this can be extended for good cause for an additional six months.

Recently, in Google LLC v. Ikongoro Tech. LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board” or “PTAB”) instituted inter partes review after it had previously denied the institution of such a review due to the pendency of related district court litigation in the Western District of Texas—a case which was subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California by the Federal Circuit granting mandamus relief.  The Board’s decision casts light on the interplay between the PTAB’s discretion to deny institution of inter partes review and the increased focus on transfers out of the Western District of Texas.