SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL"

Transcription

1 SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act (the Act ) contains measures implementing first-to-file priority and expanding opportunities for post-grant review. 1 It also includes measures directed to more recent developments in areas such as false-marking claims and tax strategy patents. This memorandum highlights significant changes that the Act would make to the patent laws relating to first-to-file priority, review of patents and applications, tax strategy patents, and patent litigation. Provisions that were considered but not adopted by the Senate are also briefly discussed. The next focal point for the legislation will be the House of Representatives, which has yet to take up the issue in this Congress. A. Priority For First Filers I. Major Provisions Of The America Invents Act Under current U.S. law, the first inventor seeking to obtain a patent may be given priority over a later inventor regardless of which inventor was the first to file a patent application. 2 In contrast, most nations employ a first-to-file rule giving priority to the first applicant for a patent on an invention, even if a later applicant was actually first to arrive at the invention. One perceived benefit of a first-to-file system is that it is relatively simple to administer, as priority can usually be determined objectively with little factual inquiry needed. The Act would introduce first-to-file priority in the U.S. In general, an applicant would be entitled to a patent unless the invention were the subject of an earlier application by another or previously available to the public. The scope of the prior art would include references up to the date of the application, as well as foreign public uses or sales, that may not constitute prior art under current law. However, direct or indirect disclosures by the applicant within a year before the date of the application would not constitute prior art. 3 Current procedures for resolving priority contests, or interferences, would be replaced with narrower derivation proceedings. These proceedings would be limited to priority challenges on grounds that an earlier applicant derived the invention from a later applicant without America Invents Act, S. 23, 112th Cong. (as passed by Senate, March 8, 2011), available at See 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (e), and (g). Act at 2 (amending 35 U.S.C. 100, ). NEW YORK WASHINGTON PARIS LONDON MILAN ROME FRANKFURT BRUSSELS in alliance with Dickson Minto W.S., London and Edinburgh

2 authorization. 4 In contrast, current interference practice allows a party to challenge priority on the basis of simply having been the first to invent. Critics note that the lack of discovery in a derivation proceeding would make it difficult for an inventor to establish that another s invention was improperly derived. 5 The new first-to-file provisions would apply only to patents and applications with an effective filing date that is at least 18 months after enactment. 6 B. Review Of Patents And Patent Applications By The Patent Office The Act includes three procedures for third parties to challenge a patent or application: submission of prior art or statements while an application is pending, post-grant review within nine months after a patent issues, and inter-partes review after the nine-month window closes. A fourth, temporary procedure for post-grant review of business-method patents would also be established. 1. Third-Party Submission Before a patent application is approved and issued, third parties could submit prior art (including patents, patent applications, and printed publications) to the Patent Office for consideration in connection with the pending application. 7 In addition, at any time, a party may cite to the Patent Office prior art bearing on patentability, or written statements of the patent owner as to the scope of a claim, although written statements would be considered only in construing claims during reexamination or post-grant review. If the pertinence of the prior art or written statement is explained, the cited art or statement and the explanation would become part of the patent s official file Post-Grant Review Within nine months after the grant or reissue of a patent, a party other than the patent holder could petition the Patent Office to review the claims for failure to meet any of the conditions or requirements for patentability or reissue. To initiate review, the challenger must provide information that, if not rebutted, demonstrates that at least one challenged claim is more likely unpatentable than patentable. The challenger may participate in the review, and bears the ultimate burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Patent Office may not proceed if the challenger also has instituted a civil court case to invalidate the Act at 2 (amending 35 U.S.C , 146, & 291). See 157 Cong. Rec. S1095 (daily ed., Mar. 2, 2011) (remarks of Sen. Feinstein). See Act at 2(o). Act at 14. The application is published or a notice of allowance is mailed, whichever is earlier. Act at 5 (amending 35 U.S.C. 301)

3 patent. 9 The challenger also may not later assert invalidity in another Patent Office proceeding, a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission on any ground that the petitioner raised during a review that results in a final written decision. 10 New rules for post-grant review would apply only to patents subject to the new first-to-file provisions i.e., patents with an effective application filing date that is at least 18 months after enactment Inter-Partes Review After the nine-month window for post-grant review has closed, a party could challenge a patent by a petition for inter-partes review. This proceeding replaces current procedures for inter-partes reexamination, and is similarly limited to novelty or obviousness challenges based on prior-art patents and printed publications. 12 However, the showing required to initiate review (a reasonable likelihood that the petition would prevail with respect to at least one claim) would be less stringent than the current standard for reexamination (which requires proof of a substantial new question of patentability). 13 Similar to post-grant review, the challenger bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, must not have already initiated a civil action challenging validity, and is estopped from later asserting invalidity on any ground that the challenger raised, or reasonably could have raised, during the review. Additionally, a party sued for infringement may not wait more than six months from the date of the complaint before petitioning for inter-partes review. 14 Due to these timing restrictions, a party sued for infringement of a patent within the first three months after the patent issues may seek post-grant review of the patent, but may not seek interpartes review. A broader range of arguments may be made during post-grant review than in inter-partes review e.g., the challenger may assert invalidity based on a prior public use, or insufficient enablement or description under Section 112. However, due to estoppel provisions, a challenger would be largely foreclosed from also arguing invalidity as a defense in the litigation on the same bases asserted in the post-grant review. The new rules for inter-partes review would take effect one year after enactment and apply to patents issued prior to enactment as well as after Id. (adding 35 U.S.C., Chapter 32). Id. (adding new 35 U.S.C. 325(e)). See Act at 5(f). Act at 5 (amending 35 U.S.C., Chapter 31). The deadline for petitioning for inter-partes review is extended to the termination of any post-grant review. Compare Act at 5 (adding new 35 U.S.C. 314) with 35 U.S.C Act at 5 (adding new 35 U.S.C. 315). Act at 5(c)

4 4. Transitional Review Of Business-Method Patents The Act calls for the Patent Office to establish proceedings for hearing challenges to businessmethod patents by accused infringers. These proceedings would be transitional in that once established, they would be available for only four years. Transitional proceedings would allow parties accused of infringing a business-method patent to challenge the patent on grounds of lack of novelty or obviousness based on prior public availability or prior-art patents or publications. The Act defines a business-method patent as a patent, other than for a technological innovation, that claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing utilized in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product. Unlike the post-grant review process, the process for review of business-method patents could be initiated more than nine months after issuance, and the petitioner would not be estopped from raising the same grounds for invalidity in a later civil action or International Trade Commission proceeding. 16 Transitional proceedings are not intended to supplant other mechanisms for review by the Patent Office or the courts. Patents that are subject to any of the new post-grant review procedures would be exempt from transitional proceedings. 17 In the case of concurrent court proceedings, the Act specifies that a court that is considering staying a motion for preliminary injunction must consider whether the stay would promote efficiency or prejudice the nonmoving party. 18 C. Tax Strategies Strategies for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability under any federal, state, local, or foreign law would be deemed indistinguishable from the prior art, and thus not patentable. However, the exclusion would not apply to aspects of an invention that relate solely to the preparation of tax returns or other tax filings. 19 Provisions of the Act regarding tax strategies would apply only to applications pending on the date of enactment or filed thereafter. The Act states explicitly that it should not be construed to imply that other types of business methods may be patented Act at 18(b). Act at 18(b)(1). Id. at 18(c) (codifying the four-factor analysis of Broad. Innovation, L.L.C. v. Charter Commc ns, Inc., No. 03-cv-2223, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46623, at *10 11 (D. Colo. July 11, 2006)). Act at 14. Id

5 D. Patent Litigation 1. Preliminary Injunction If a patent infringement suit is filed within three months of the grant of a patent, a court could not stay consideration of a motion for preliminary injunction on grounds that post-grant review is being sought False-Marking Suits To satisfy the notice requirement for recovering damages for infringement, a patent owner or licensee may identify the relevant patents on either the patented article itself or its packaging. 22 Improper marking for example, listing an expired, invalid, or inapposite patent may give rise to a claim of false marking. The Federal Circuit s 2009 holding in Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co. that false marking is punishable by a fine of up to $500 per article, 23 coupled with a statutory right of every person to bring a false-marking claim, 24 has led to an explosion in falsemarking litigation. The Act would limit the cause of action to (a) the United States for recovery of the fine, and (b) parties who have suffered a competitive injury for recovery of only their actual damages due to the false marking. This provision would take effect immediately upon enactment and apply in all cases pending on or after that date. 25 In addition, the Act would permit virtual marking by posting a list of patents on the Internet and referencing the web address on the patented article or its packaging. 26 This provision would benefit companies with large numbers of products and patents. 3. Best Mode Although the Act would retain the requirement that an application must set forth the best mode for practicing the invention, any failure to disclose a best mode would no longer be a defense to infringement Act at 5 (adding new 35 U.S.C. 325). See 35 U.S.C. 287(a). Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See 35 U.S.C Act at 2(k) (amending 35 U.S.C. 292). Act at 4 (amending 35 U.S.C. 273). Act at 15 (amending 35 U.S.C. 282). See generally 35 U.S.C. 112,

6 II. Provisions Not Adopted Several provisions considered by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate were ultimately not adopted. Most notably, the Senate defeated an amendment introduced by Senator Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would have eliminated first-to-file provisions from the Act and retained the current first-to-invent priority laws. 28 The Act s sponsor, Senator Leahy (D-Vt.), has referred to the first-to-file provisions as the heart of the America Invents Act. 29 Earlier versions of the Act would have required trial judges to play a greater role in evaluating patent damages methodologies before submitting the issue to the jury. 30 It is unclear that an additional statutory framework for damages is needed in view of the heightened court scrutiny of damages awards reflected in recent decisions. 31 Other unadopted provisions would largely have codified recent case law on willfulness and change of venue. 32 Under the Federal Circuit s Seagate decision, willfulness must be proved by clear and convincing evidence that the accused acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its acts constituted infringement. In addition, a party charging willfulness may not rely solely on the infringer s knowledge of the patent or on a failure to obtain advice of counsel. 33 Under T.S. Tech., a motion to transfer a case from one district to another should be granted if the transferee venue is more clearly convenient than the plaintiff s chosen forum. 34 The Senate also rejected a provision that would have allowed the Patent Office to continue its current reexamination procedures, for a period of up to four years, in place of inter-partes review and any post-grant review on the basis of prior-art patents and printed publications S. Amdt. 133, 112th Cong. (2011). Press Release, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Leahy: First-Inventor-To-File Transition Support In Every Corner Of Patent Community (Mar. 3, 2011), See Patent Reform Act of 2011, S.23, 112th Cong. 4 (2011) (as reported by S. Comm. on the Judiciary, Feb. 3, 2011), available at See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft, Inc., Nos , -1055, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011) (reversing royalty damages award based on a 25% rule of thumb as unsupported by evidence, and rejecting a calculation based on the entire market value of the infringing product where sales were not shown to have been driven by patented features). See id. at 4 & 8. See In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See In re TS Tech U.S. Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See 157 Cong. Rec. S1071 (daily ed., Mar. 1, 2011)

7 III. Conclusion Having cleared the Senate, the Act must proceed through the House of Representatives, where a version of the bill is expected to be introduced in the next few weeks. 36 Assuming that the bill passes in the House, any differences between the House and Senate versions will have to be resolved before a final bill is adopted by Congress. Senate passage is an auspicious start for the Act. Efforts at similar patent legislation in 2007 and 2008 met with success in the House but became bogged down in the Senate. If adopted, the America Invents Act will represent the most substantial change to the U.S. patent code in almost 60 years. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For further information regarding this memorandum or intellectual property issues generally, please contact Kelsey I. Nix ( , knix@willkie.com), Robert G. Kofsky ( , rkofsky@willkie.com), or the Willkie attorney with whom you regularly work. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP is headquartered at 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY Our telephone number is (212) and our facsimile number is (212) Our website is located at March 10, 2011 Copyright 2011 by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. All Rights Reserved. This memorandum may not be reproduced or disseminated in any form without the express permission of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. This memorandum is provided for news and information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or an invitation to an attorney-client relationship. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP does not guarantee such accuracy and cannot be held liable for any errors in or any reliance upon this information. Under New York s Code of Professional Responsibility, this material may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 36 Press Release, House Comm. on the Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Chairman Smith Praises Senate Passage of Patent Reform; House to Introduce Similar Legislation This Month (Mar. 8, 2011),

Factors That May Weigh In Favor Of, Or Against, Patentability

Factors That May Weigh In Favor Of, Or Against, Patentability CLIENT MEMORANDUM U.S. PATENT OFFICE PUBLISHES GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PROCESS CLAIMS COVER ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT S BILSKI DECISION The United States Patent

More information

February, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1

February, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1 02 14 2011 February, 2010 Patent Reform Legislative Update 1 The Patent Law Reform Act of 2011, based on the Managers Amendment version of S. 515 in the 11 th Congress, was introduced as S. 23 on January

More information

Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense

Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September

More information

FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF INTEREST FTC AND DOJ ISSUE JOINT REPORT REGARDING ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Interesting and difficult questions lie at the intersection of intellectual property rights and

More information

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine

AMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine AMERICA INVENTS ACT Changes to Patent Law Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine American Invents Act of 2011 Enacted on September 16, 2011 Effective date for most provisions was September

More information

Intellectual Property/Legislative ADVISORY

Intellectual Property/Legislative ADVISORY Intellectual Property/Legislative ADVISORY March 18, 2011 Patent Reform Legislation Passes the Senate; House to Introduce Similar Bill this Month On March 8, 2011, the U.S. Senate passed S. 23, the America

More information

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

More information

CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS

CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS CLIENT MEMORANDUM CONGRESS MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO RULES GOVERNING CLASS ACTIONS Effective February 18, 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( CAFA ) makes significant changes to the rules

More information

Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act

Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act Patrick A. Doody, Partner Northern Virginia Office America Invents Act (AIA) S 23 Senate Verison Passed the Senate in

More information

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT CREDITORS CAN HOLD A VALID LIEN ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FCC LICENSES

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT CREDITORS CAN HOLD A VALID LIEN ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FCC LICENSES CLIENT MEMORANDUM SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT CREDITORS CAN HOLD A VALID LIEN ON THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF FCC LICENSES In a recent decision, Judge Sean H. Lane of the Southern

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file

More information

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch   October 11-12, 2011 America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor

More information

Patent Reform Act of 2007

Patent Reform Act of 2007 July 2007 Patent Reform Act of 2007 By Cynthia Lopez Beverage Intellectual Property Bulletin, July 27, 2007 On July 18, 2007 and July 20, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee,

More information

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA) I. Prior to AIA, there were two primary ways for a third party to invalidate a patent in the patent office: A. Interference under 35 U.S.C. 135 & 37 C.F.R. 41.202, which was extremely limited, as it required:

More information

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings Post-Grant Patent Proceedings The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, established new post-grant proceedings available on or after September 16, 2012, for challenging the validity of

More information

U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act

U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act August 15, 2011 John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson What s New in 2011? Patent Law Reform is high on Congressional agenda A desire to legislate Bipartisan Patent

More information

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011

The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011 The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents

More information

The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO

The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous

More information

Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation

Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation Congress Passes Historic Patent Reform Legislation America Invents Act Transitions U.S. Patent System from a First-to-Invent to First-Inventor-to-File System, Overhauls Post-Issue Review Proceedings and

More information

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP 2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &

More information

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly. BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

America Invents Act: Patent Reform America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald Gibbs LeClairRyan December 2011 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com

More information

POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP

POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction... 1 II. Post-Grant Review Proceedings... 1 A. Inter-Partes

More information

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department

Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Number 1241 September 28, 2011 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Practical Implications of the America Invents Act on United States Patent Litigation This Client Alert addresses the key

More information

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

America Invents Act: Patent Reform America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com

More information

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

More information

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act February 16, 2012 Practice Groups: Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Litigation U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents

More information

Considerations for the United States

Considerations for the United States Considerations for the United States Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm Leahy-Smith America Invents Act First Inventor to file, with grace period Derivation Actions Prior user

More information

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created

More information

STATUS OF. bill in the. Given the is presented. language. ability to would be. completely. of 35 U.S.C found in 35. bills both.

STATUS OF. bill in the. Given the is presented. language. ability to would be. completely. of 35 U.S.C found in 35. bills both. STATUS OF PATENTT REFORM LEGISLATION On June 23, 2011, the United States House of Representatives approved its patent reform bill, H.R. 1249 (the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act). Thee passage follows

More information

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM

More information

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative

2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative 2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,

More information

Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform

Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform December 15, 2011 Speaker: Ron Harris The Harris Firm ron@harrispatents.com The USPTO Under Director David Kappos USPTO Director David Kappos

More information

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011

More information

10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson

10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM. W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson 10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT PATENT REFORM W. Edward Ramage Chair, IP Group Baker Donelson eramage@bakerdonelson.com Patent Reform Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16 th Melange of changes (major

More information

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012 America Invents Act Implementing Rules September 2012 AIA Rules (Part 2) Post Grant Review Inter Partes Review Section 18 Proceedings Derivation Proceedings Practice before the PTAB 2 Post Grant Review

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING

More information

America Invents Act September 19, Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel

America Invents Act September 19, Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel America Invents Act September 19, 2011 Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) Text is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/bills-112hr1249enr/pdf/bills-112hr1249enr.pdf

More information

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys

The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys James Morando, Jeff Fisher and Alex Reese Farella Braun + Martel LLP After many years of debate,

More information

High-Tech Patent Issues

High-Tech Patent Issues August 6, 2012 High-Tech Patent Issues On June 4, 2013, the White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues released its Legislative Priorities & Executive Actions, designed to protect innovators in

More information

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams

More information

Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act

Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act By Alan Kendrick, J.D., Nerac Analyst The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law By President Obama in September 2011 and the final

More information

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination

More information

Impact of the Patent Reform Bill

Impact of the Patent Reform Bill G. Hopkins Guy, III of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Speaker 3: 1 Impact of the Patent Reform Bill G. Hopkins Guy, Esq. Patent Reform Bill: Current Status Passed House 9/7/07 Passed Senate Judiciary

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3

Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. Parag Shekher 3 Should Patent Prosecution Bars Apply To Interference Counsel? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Parag Shekher 3 Introduction The Federal Circuit stated that it granted a rare petition for a writ of mandamus

More information

The New Post-AIA World

The New Post-AIA World Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent

More information

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 Case 2:15-cv-00961-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338 NEXUSCARD INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION v. Plaintiff, BROOKSHIRE

More information

L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f

L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f Case 1:13-cv-03777-AKH Document 154 Filed 08/11/14 I USDC Page SL ~ y 1 of 10 I DOCJ.. 1.' '~"'"T. ~ IFLr"l 1-... ~~c "' ' CALL\ ELED DOL#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT L DATE FILED: ~-~-~ lll'f SOUTHERN

More information

SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS (a) INTER PARTES REVIEW. Chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 3 1 1. I n t e r p a r t e s r e v i e w. 3 1 2. P e

More information

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) POLICY BRIEF SEPTEMBER 2011 no. 184 The Comprehensive Patent Reform of 2011 Navigating the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act John Villasenor The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) approved in September

More information

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent

More information

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform

Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June

More information

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany

More information

Patent Pending: The Outlook for Patent Legislation in the 114th Congress

Patent Pending: The Outlook for Patent Legislation in the 114th Congress Intellectual Property and Government Advocacy & Public Policy Practice Groups July 13, 2015 Patent Pending: The Outlook for Patent Legislation in the 114th Congress The field of patent law is in a state

More information

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition

America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition Dave Cochran Jones Day Cleveland December 6, 2012 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy

More information

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk NEURO CARDIAC

More information

No Appeal Against High Court Ruling That Notes of Interviews Conducted by Lawyers Are Not Covered by Legal Advice Privilege

No Appeal Against High Court Ruling That Notes of Interviews Conducted by Lawyers Are Not Covered by Legal Advice Privilege CLIENT MEMORANDUM No Appeal Against High Court Ruling That Notes of Interviews Conducted by Lawyers Are Not Covered by Legal Advice Privilege February 13, 2017 AUTHORS Peter Burrell Paul Feldberg A. Introduction

More information

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012 Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,

More information

Third Circuit Holds That Claims Are Disallowable Under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code No Matter Who Holds Them

Third Circuit Holds That Claims Are Disallowable Under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code No Matter Who Holds Them CLIENT MEMORANDUM Third Circuit Holds That Claims Are Disallowable Under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code No November 22, 2013 AUTHORS Paul V. Shalhoub Marc Abrams In a recent opinion, the United

More information

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT

More information

July 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon

July 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF

More information

Halliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to Rebut Presumption

Halliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to Rebut Presumption CLIENT MEMORANDUM Halliburton II: Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption Survives but Supreme Court Makes it Easier to June 24, 2014 AUTHORS Todd G. Cosenza Robert A. Gomez In a highly-anticipated decision (Halliburton

More information

BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer

BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer Agenda Overview of AIA Post-Grant Approach More Lenses on Patents After Issuance Section 6 Post-Grant Review Proceedings

More information

WilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future

WilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future June 21, 2017 David Cavanaugh, Partner, Christopher Noyes, Partner, Attorney Advertising Speakers David Cavanaugh Partner Christopher Noyes

More information

The Supreme Court is Set to Decide the Scope of Business Method Patent Protection

The Supreme Court is Set to Decide the Scope of Business Method Patent Protection Winter 2010 Federal Circuit Confirms Cislo & Thomas Arguments that Egyptian Goddess Applies to Design Patent Validity Adopting the position that Cislo & Thomas argued in briefs before the Federal Circuit,

More information

Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and

Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling

More information

Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office

Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office Oil States, SAS Institute, and New Approaches at the U.S. Patent Office Supreme Court Holds that Challenges to Patent Validity Need Not Proceed Before an Article III Court and Sends More Claims Into Review,

More information

November Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations. g Motivation To Combine. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

November Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations. g Motivation To Combine. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Federal Circuit Review Obviousness Volume Two Issue Two November 2009 In This Issue: g Obvious To Try In Pharmaceutical Formulations g Motivation To Combine g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting = Product-Process

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PROPPANT EXPRESS INVESTMENTS, LLC, PROPPANT EXPRESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Petitioner, v. OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Patent Owner.

More information

Patent Prosecution Update

Patent Prosecution Update Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious

More information

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 01 S SENATE BILL Commerce Committee Substitute Adopted //1 Judiciary I Committee Substitute Adopted //1 Fourth Edition Engrossed //1 House Committee Substitute

More information

Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent?

Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication,

More information

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons

More information

Case: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9

Case: 3:13-cv bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 Case: 3:13-cv-00346-bbc Document #: 48 Filed: 11/14/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening. Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran

Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening. Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran June 21, 2018 Housekeeping Questions can be entered via the Q&A Widget open on the

More information

The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape

The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016

More information

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Case 2:09-cv-00290-NBF Document 604 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, vs. Plaintiff, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY

More information

Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016

Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD 404.891.1400 mary.henninger@mcneillbaur.com REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com

More information

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 The Governing Statutes 35 U.S.C. 311(a) In General. Subject to the

More information

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB Organization Statutory Members of the Board The Board is created by statute (35 U.S.C. 6). 35 U.S.C. 6(a) provides: There shall

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HTC CORPORATION, et al., HTC CORPORATION, et al., KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., V. PLAINTIFF, KYOCERA CORPORATION, et al., SAN JOSE DIVISION

More information

Post Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services

Post Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services Post Grant Review Strategy Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services Cardinal Intellectual Property 1603 Orrington Avenue, 20th Floor Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 847.905.7122 Fax: 847.905.7123 Email: mail@cardinal-ip.com

More information

Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable?

Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable? April 2014 Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has before it the first appeal from the denial 1

More information

New Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello

New Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello New Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed a bill containing the American Inventors Protection

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER e-watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corporation Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION e-watch INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0347 AVIGILON CORPORATION,

More information

FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS

FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS November 3, 2000 As discussed in our November 29, 1999, Special Report on the Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, legislation was enacted

More information

Changes at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP

Changes at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP Changes at the PTO October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP Overview: Changes at the PTO Some Causes for Reform Patent Trial and Appeals

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, : Case No. 1:12-cv-552 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : : vs. : : TEAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC, Appellant 2016-1173 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in

More information

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme

More information

Case 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904

Case 1:12-cv GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904 Case 1:12-cv-00617-GMS Document 60 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1904 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AIP ACQUISITION LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 12-617-GMS LEVEL

More information

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 1. Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction 1:1 Evolution of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 1:1.1 Recommendations for Patent System Reform [A] The FTC Report and NRC Report [B] Patent Reform Bills 1:1.2 The Patent Reform

More information

Case 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9 Case 2:05-cv-00163-DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION EPICREALM, LICENSING, LLC v No. 2:05CV163 AUTOFLEX

More information

Terry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23)

Terry Guerrero. PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE (Doc. 23) Case 8:12-cv-01661-JST-JPR Document 41 Filed 05/22/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:1723 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

More information

Volume Two Issue 11. In This Issue: Inherent Anticipation. g A Non-Limiting Claim Preamble is Irrelevant to the Anticipation Analysis

Volume Two Issue 11. In This Issue: Inherent Anticipation. g A Non-Limiting Claim Preamble is Irrelevant to the Anticipation Analysis Federal Circuit Review Anticipation Volume Two Issue 11 October 2010 In This Issue: g Inherent Anticipation g A Non-Limiting Claim Preamble is Irrelevant to the Anticipation Analysis g When References

More information

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Erika Arner Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA December 12, 2013 0 Post-Grant Proceedings New AIA proceedings

More information