Petitions and Appeals in the USPTO
|
|
- Gordon Marshall
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Petitions and Appeals in the USPTO William F. Smith Of Counsel Woodcock Washburn LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA Phone: Fax:
2 Pe##ons in ex parte examina#on and reexamina#on as well as inter partes reexamina#on are provided for by 37 CFR
3 37 CFR 1.181(a) (a) Pe##on may be taken to the Director: (1) From any ac#on or requirement of any examiner in the ex parte prosecu#on of an applica#on, or in ex parte or inter partes prosecu#on of a reexamina#on proceeding which is not subject to appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or to the court; (2) In cases in which a statute or the rules specify that the maqer is to be determined directly by or reviewed by the Director; and (3) To invoke the supervisory authority of the Director in appropriate circumstances.
4 37 CFR Ques#ons not specifically provided for All situa#ons not specifically provided for in the regula#ons of this part will be decided in accordance with the merits of each situa#on by or under the authority of the Director, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed, and such decision will be communicated to the interested par#es in wri#ng. Any pe##on seeking a decision under this sec#on must be accompanied by the pe##on fee set forth in 1.17(f).
5 37 CFR Suspension of rules In an extraordinary situa#on, when jus#ce requires, any requirement of the regula#ons in this part which is not a requirement of the statutes may be suspended or waived by the Director or the Director s designee, sua sponte, or on pe##on of the interested party, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed. Any pe##on under this sec#on must be accompanied by the pe##on fee set forth in 1.17(f).
6 Pe##on Requirements The pe##on must be in wri#ng, 37 CFR 1.2. The pe##on must contain a statement of facts involved, the point(s) to be reviewed and the ac#on requested, 37 CFR 1.181(b). The pe##on must be accompanied by a fee, if required, in order to avoid the pe##on being summarily dismissed, 37 CFR 1.181(d).
7 Pe##on Requirements The pe##on must be #mely filed, as required in 37 CFR 1.181(f), or as required in a specific statute or regula#on. The pe##on must comply with any specific requirements as provided by statute, regula#on or USPTO policy.
8 The Legacy 2
9 Why the drop in the previous administration? Quality crackdown Myriad opaque layers of quality review RCE churn Cases are not being allowed but neither are they being abandoned 9
10 Changes in the PTO Quality review processes have been retargeted to In Process Reviews (IPRs) rather than allowances Changes in examiner count system to disincentivize RCEs for both examiners and applicants Reduced count for examiner RCE docketed as Special New case so applicant cannot expect quick turnaround 10
11 Have things changed in the PTO? 11
12 Not really! 12
13 RCE or Appeal? 13
14 RCE or Appeal? 14
15 RCE or Appeal? 15
16 RCE or Appeal? RCE New fee--$1,200 for first RCE Continuing prosecution costs More Festo issues No PTA for now Appeal NOA--$800.00; forward to Board-- $2, No continuing prosecution costs Festo issues only for new arguments PTA for B and C delays 16
17 Considerations in Deciding Whether You Should RCE/ Appeal Have petitionable items been resolved? Have you worked with the examiner? Business needs of client Timeliness of BPAI decision Possible outcome of appeal Claim scope Evidentiary record 17
18 Resolve petitionable matters Know what matters are subject to review by way of petition instead of appeal, e.g., Restriction requirement or election of species Entry of amendments and evidence after final rejection and/or NOA Undesignated new ground of rejection in Examiner s Answer Arguing a petitionable matter in the briefs or at hearing is futile and can cause loss of credibility 18
19 Work with the Examiner Interview, interview, interview Personal interview is preferred Always have SPE involved when case is assigned to a junior examiner Don t have junior examiner advocating your case to the SPE 19
20 But can you realistically work with the examiner? Recent statement of rejection: The reference does not expressly teach a single embodiment with Applicant's [claim feature]. This deficiency is cured by common sense of the artisan. 20
21 Business Needs of Clients Patent needed sooner rather than later? Will narrow claims suffice for time being? Is patent term a significant issue? 21
22 Why appeal? Appeal early and often as good things can happen. PTA is now available for cases in which a NOA is filed but do not reach the PTAB for decision. 22
23 Join the crowd As of April 30, 2013, 26,230 appeals were pending before the Board, up from 1,900 in December
24 A Significant Number Of Cases Are Reopened After A Pre- Appeal Brief Conference Request 24
25 When To Ask For Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Clear errors in the examiner's rejections The examiner's omissions of one or more essential elements needed for a prima facie case of unpatentability Other clear errors of fact on the part of the examiner 25
26 A Significant Number Of Cases Are Reopened After An Appeal Brief Is Filed 26
27 Board Outcomes The Board affirmed 49.3%, affirmedin-part 14.4% and reversed 32.5% in FY As of April 30, 2013, the Board has affirmed 53.8%, affirmed-in-part 14.1% and reversed 28.9% this fiscal year. 27
28 Board Outcomes Reversal Congratulations! Affirmed-in-part Direct result of separately arguing claims; results in PTA Affirmed May be the first time you understand why the claims are unpatentable and can now advise client on the way forward 28
29 Pre-Appeal Considerations Claim scope Nip/tuck needed=rce Evidentiary record Enhancement of evidentiary record=rce 29
30 Beware of the Advisory Action Carefully read any comments the examiner made in the continuation section of an advisory action. Examiners often times substantively modify the basis of a pending rejection in making such comments. 30
31 An Appeal Is All About Claim Scope Analysis begins with a key legal question what is the invention claimed?...claim interpretation will normally control the remainder of the decisional process. Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Manufacturing Co., 810 F.2d 1561, (Fed. Cir. 1987) 31
32 Review claim set Try to have at least one claim that is clearly patentable pending before final rejection May stake out negotiating point with examiner Sets the stage for gaining PTA through an appeal 32
33 Amendment after NOA But Before Appeal Brief 37 CFR 41.33(a)--After NOA is filed and prior to filing of Appeal Brief, amendments are admitted pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR This allows you and the examiner to continue negotiating claim language after the NOA is filed. 33
34 Amendment after Appeal Brief 37 CFR 41.33(b)--Amendments filed on or after the date of filing the Appeal Brief will only be admitted: To cancel claims, where such cancellation does not affect the scope of any other pending claim in the proceeding, To rewrite dependent claims into independent form 34
35 Claim Construction in the USPTO [A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 35
36 Claim Construction in the USPTO Just because you are right does not mean the examiner is wrong. [T]he fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation. Morris, 127 F.3d at
37 Words count Claim 1. Bear with me. Claim 2. Bare with me.
38 Punctuation counts Claim 1 Eats shoots and leaves. Claim 2 Eats, shoots and leaves. 38
39 Claim 1 Eats shoots and leaves. Claim 2 Eats, shoots and leaves. 39
40 Know the record Claim 1. An abrasive composition comprising soap. 40
41 Evidentiary Record Review the evidentiary record and determine whether the evidence of record is sufficient to support your position. You should have an understanding from the examiner why submitted evidence is not persuasive by way of office action and/or interview 41
42 Evidence after NOA and Prior to Appeal Brief 37 CFR 41.33(d)(1)--Evidence filed after the NOA and prior to the filing of the Appeal Brief may be admitted if (1) the examiner determines that the evidence would overcome at least one rejection under appeal and does not necessitate any new ground of rejection and (2) presentation of a showing of good cause why the evidence is necessary and was not presented earlier. 42
43 Chances of Having Evidence Entered After Appeal Brief Slim and none and Slim just left town. 43
44 Appeal Brief Format New Rule: Real Party in interest Related proceedings Summary of claimed subject Argument Claims appendix Eliminated: Status of claims (recommend) Status of amendment filed after final rejection Statement of grounds of rejection to be reviewed (recommend) Claims appendix Evidence appendix is optional but recommended Related proceedings appendix 44
45 Appeal Brief Strategy All responses to office actions should be written with an appeal brief in mind If examiner is not persuaded, do I have a Plan B? Merits of pre-appeal conference requests and appeal briefs should already be of record before NOA is filed Worked with examiner but no agreement 45
46 Appeal Brief Strategy Standard of review Initial burden on examiner to establish unpatentability How has the examiner erred? Legal error Factual error Preponderance of evidence favors appellant 46
47 Patentability Standard [T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. If examination at the initial stage does not produce a prima facie case of unpatentability, then without more the applicant is entitled to grant of the patent. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citations omitted) 47
48 But what is the PTAB standard of review? At issue is whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in making the aforementioned rejections. or, Does the evidence of record support the Examiner s conclusion. 48
49 Presumption Of Examiner Correctness? Ex parte Frye, Appeal No , February 26, 2010 (precedential) Panel included the Director, Deputy Director, CAPJ, a VCAPJ and three APJs. Specifically, the Board reviews the particular finding(s) contested by an appellant anew in light of all the evidence and argument on that issue. 49
50 Sources of Examiner error--prima facie case of unpatentability Examiner must construe each claim under review using standards appropriate for claims under review before the USPTO Has examiner construed the claims? If so, is it reasonable? 50
51 Sources of Examiner error--prima facie case of unpatentability Examiner must apply the correct legal standards for the section of the statute the rejection is based upon. Without knowing the proper legal standard, the examiner will not know what facts are relevant. 51
52 Sources of Examiner error--prima facie case of unpatentability Examiner must make relevant facts of record in determining the patentability of the claim under review. Guided by proper claim construction and legal standard(s) 52
53 Sources of Examiner error--prima facie case of unpatentability Examiner must set forth a fact-based statement of rejection setting forth the reasons why the facts relied upon, using the correct legal standard, render the properly construed claim under review unpatentable. Statement of rejection must be comprehensive and complete 53
54 Examiner Error Neither the Office Action nor the PTO erred, the examiner erred. 54
55 Appeal Brief Must Contain All Arguments [A]ny arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal. 37 CFR 41.37(c)(iv) 55
56 New Arguments? The Appeal Brief can contain new arguments based upon existing record, commonly: Based upon claim construction In response to Advisory Action To flesh out previously made positions 56
57 Appeal Brief Argument Do not cite MPEP as primary authority 35 U.S.C. Legal precedent Use cases listed in MPEP if relevant
58 Appeal Brief-Argument It is helpful to establish examiner error by structuring arguments as follows: 1. Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as allegedly obvious over Smith in view of Jones a. Separate argument for claim 1 i. Legal standard ii. Claim construction iii. Argument 58
59 Use sub-headings to highlight specific arguments Reference X does not describe element A of claim 1 The applied references do not teach the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole The examiner has used impermissible hindsight to combine the references 59
60 Setting the Stage for Examiner Legal Error Sample Legal Standard--Anticipation Anticipation is an exacting standard. Under 35 U.S.C. 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Implicit in a review of an examiner s anticipation analysis is that the claim must first have been correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested limitation. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("To properly compare [an allegedly anticipatory prior art reference] with the claims at issue, we must construe the term 'computer' to ascertain its scope and meaning."). 60
61 Example Scenario: Examiner asserts that reference A anticipates claim 1, asserting that limitation X is described in A Argument:. Explain how you construe limitation X, using standard of Morris Explain why reference A does not describe limitation X as construed Finally, explain why examiner s assertion is incorrect, legally and/or factually Use Federal Circuit decisions, not the MPEP 61
62 Setting the Stage for Examiner Legal Error Second Sample Legal Standard--Anticipation "Anticipation" in patent usage means that the claimed invention was previously known and described in a printed publication, explicitly or inherently. Anticipation is established by documentary evidence, and requires that every claim element and limitation is set forth in a single prior art reference, in the same form and order as in the claim. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An anticipating reference must enable that which it is asserted to anticipate. Omeprazole, 483 F.3d at 1378 ( To anticipate, the identical subject matter must not only be previously known, but the knowledge must be sufficiently enabling to place the information in the possession of the public. ); Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Found. for Medical Educ. & Research, 346 F.3d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (same). 62
63 Setting the Stage for Examiner Legal Error Third Sample Legal Standard--Anticipation A prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, to anticipate. In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Inherent anticipation cannot be based on possibilities or probabilities. Akami Technologies, Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Services, Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("A claim limitation is inherent in the prior art if it is necessarily present in the prior art, not merely probably or possibly present."); In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("Inherent anticipation requires that the missing descriptive material is 'necessarily present,' not merely probably or possibly present in the prior art."). 63
64 Setting the Stage for Examiner Legal Error First Sample Legal Standard--Obviousness As set forth in KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). [A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does. 64
65 Setting the Stage for Examiner Legal Error Second Sample Legal Standard--Obviousness [R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). 65
66 Examiner factual error Often tied to claim construction Claim element is thermosetting Examiner identifies a polyethylene element in reference as meeting this claim element Is polyethylene thermosetting? What does the specification say? What does the reference say? 66
67 Examiner factual error Is polyethylene thermosetting? Must have game plan for response as evidence/ argument/amendment create Festo issues 67
68 Appeal Brief-Argument Work for PTA PTA accrues upon an appellate review by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or by a federal court in a case in which the patent was issued under a decision in the review reversing an adverse determination of patentability. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(C)(2)(iii) 68
69 New PTA Rules B delay (three year pendency) will now include time from filing of NOA to the time Board assumes jurisdiction Jurisdiction passes to Board upon filing of Reply Brief or at the expiration of that time C delay (pendency of successful appeal) begins when Board assumes jurisdiction 69
70 PTA--Every Claim Counts Argue Claims Separately Claims argued together, stand or fall together When argued as a group (subject to same rejection), the Board will select claim most vulnerable to rejection... Affirmance of rejection of this one claim is affirmance of all regardless of the patentability of any individual nonargued claim 70
71 PTA--Every Claim Counts Argue Claims Separately Converse not true If the rejection of the first independent claim is reversed, the Board will review each remaining independent claim to see if reasons for reversing apply. 71
72 Conclusion Appeal early and often! 72
73 Petitions and Appeals in the USPTO William F. Smith Of Counsel Woodcock Washburn LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA Phone: Fax:
After Final Practice and Appeal
July 15, 2016 Steven M. Jensen, Member Why is a Final Rejection Important? Substantive prosecution is closed Filing a response to a Final Office Action does not stop the time for responding Application
More information(1) (2) 35 U.S.C CFR
A VIEW BEHING THE CURTAIN: The BPAI Decision Making Process Vice Chief Judge James Moore, Vice Chief Judge Allen MacDonald, Judge Kenneth Hairston, Judge Murriel Crawford Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
More informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and
More informationLessons From Inter Partes Review Denials
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lessons From Inter Partes Review Denials Law360, New
More informationWinning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board
Winning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board Michael Messinger Director, Electrical and Clean Tech April 22, 2010 Obvious Not Obvious 2 Ratcheting Up a Non-Obviousness Position Attack with Argument Only
More informationTips On Maximizing Patent Term Adjustment
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tips On Maximizing Patent Term Adjustment Law360,
More informationNew 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 informationPROCEDURES 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 informationPreparing For The Obvious At The PTAB
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB Law360, New
More informationINTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS
INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS Eugene T. Perez Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Gerald M. Murphy, Jr. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Leonard R. Svensson Birch, Stewart, Kolasch
More informationWill the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Rely Upon Dictionary Definitions Newly. Cited in Appeal Briefs? Answer: It Depends
Will the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Rely Upon Dictionary Definitions Newly Cited in Appeal Briefs? Answer: It Depends By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 I. INTRODUCTION Should dictionary
More informationNAPP Comment to PTO on Quality Case Studies Page 1
COMMENTS TO THE USPTO ON QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CASE STUDIES Submitted by: The National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) Jeffrey L. Wendt, President Louis J. Hoffman, Chairman of the Board Principal
More informationPaper Entered: January 10, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22 571-272-7822 Entered: January 10, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MITSUBISHI CABLE INDUSTRIES, LTD. and MITSUBISHI CABLE
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. Patent No. 6,125,371 PETITIONER S REQUEST
More informationSuccessfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO. Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept.
Successfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept. 15, 2012 USPTO inter partes proceedings are not healthy for patents.
More informationRoyal Society of Chemistry Law Group. Recent Case Law Relevant to Chemistry
Royal Society of Chemistry Law Group Recent Case Law Relevant to Chemistry Recent IP Case Law from the US Presenter: Don Lewis Topics KSR v. Teleflex and aftermath Tafas & GSK v. Dudas and aftermath New
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Proceedings
Post-Grant Proceedings Are You Ready to Practice Before the New PTAB? Bryan K. Wheelock January 30, 2013 USPTO Post Grant Proceedings The AIA created three post grant proceedings for challenging the validity
More informationPatent 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 informationOLIVE & 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 informationDelain Law Office, PLLC
Delain Law Office, PLLC Patent Prosecution and Appeal Tips From PTO Day, December 5, 2005 Nancy Baum Delain, Esq. Registered Patent Attorney Delain Law Office, PLLC Clifton Park, NY http://www.ipattorneyfirm.com
More informationInter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger
Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent
More informationThe Serious Burden Requirement Has Teeth - A Prohibition on Restriction Requirements Later in Prosecution
The Serious Burden Requirement Has Teeth - A Prohibition on Restriction Requirements Later in Prosecution By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 Rick Neifeld is the senior partner at Neifeld IP Law, PC,
More informationPost-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 informationPaper No February 13, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 26 571.272.7822 February 13, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ASKELADDEN LLC, Petitioner, v. PURPLE LEAF, LLC, Patent Owner.
More informationPaper No February 13, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 26 571.272.7822 February 13, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ASKELADDEN LLC, Petitioner, v. PURPLE LEAF, LLC, Patent Owner.
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More informationKSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees
KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies Practice and International Business Industry
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE: MARCEL VAN OS, FREDDY ALLEN ANZURES, SCOTT FORSTALL, GREG CHRISTIE, IMRAN CHAUDHRI, Appellants 2015-1975 Appeal from the United States Patent
More informationBoard of Patent Appeals and Interferences Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) *1 Ex Parte Miguel A. Estrada, Joseph A. Russo, and Thomas M.
2010 WL 3389278 (Bd.Pat.App. & Interf.) Page 1 2010 WL 3389278 (Bd.Pat.App. & Interf.) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) *1 Ex Parte Miguel A. Estrada, Joseph
More informationPaper Entered: December 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571-272-7822 Entered: December 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SPANSION INC., SPANSION LLC, and SPANSION (THAILAND)
More informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law
More informationStatus Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same
Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same CLIENT ALERT June 30, 2016 Maia H. Harris harrism@pepperlaw.com Frank
More informationPaper 24 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC. Petitioner v. EVERYMD.COM LLC Patent
More informationPaper No. 11 Tel: Entered: July 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SEQUENOM, INC. Petitioner v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
More informationPatent Prosecution. (a) Test: "Skill of the ordinary mechanic" is required; Hotchkiss v Greenwood, 52 US 246 (1 850) - US Supreme Court
Patent Prosecution OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C SEC1-ION 103(a) I. In General A. Prior to 1952: Various Standards, or Tests, for Patentability 1. Various Standards, or Tests, for Patentability
More informationChanges 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 informationSPECIAL 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 informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationThe Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence Law360,
More informationHow To Fix The Amendment Fallacy
Intellectual Property How To Fix The Amendment Fallacy This article was originally published in Managing Intellectual Property on April 28, 2014 by Patrick Doody Patrick A. Doody Intellectual Property
More informationNavigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Navigating Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing
More information(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E.
Case: 12-1261 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2012 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY,
More informationAre all pending claims now indefinite? Robert A. Schwartzman, Ph.D.
Are all pending claims now indefinite? Robert A. Schwartzman, Ph.D. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has recently instituted a major shift in United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
More informationThe patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
Question Q217 National Group: United States Title: The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness Contributors: Marc V. Richards Chair Alan Kasper Drew Meunier Joshua Goldberg Dan Altman
More informationPatent Owner Use of Reexamination for Patents Granted Prior to KSR v. Teleflex. Stephen G. Kunin Partner. AIPLA Webcast, April 20, 2011
Patent Owner Use of Reexamination for Patents Granted Prior to KSR v. Teleflex Stephen G. Kunin Partner AIPLA Webcast, April 20, 2011 Should Patent Owners Use Reexamination to Strengthen Patents Issued
More informationThe New PTAB: Best Practices
The New PTAB: Best Practices Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association Washington in the West Conference January 29, 2013 Los Angeles, California Jeffrey B. Robertson Administrative Patent Judge
More informationUnited 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 informationInter 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 informationPOST 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 informationPatent Term Adjustment: The New USPTO Rules
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Patent Term Adjustment: The New USPTO Rules Law360,
More informationChapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted
Chapter 1900 Protest 1901 Protest Under 37 CFR 1.291 1901.01 Who Can Protest 1901.02 Information Which Can Be Relied on in Protest 1901.03 How Protest Is Submitted 1901.04 When Should the Protest Be Submitted
More informationVenue Differences. Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings 4/16/2015. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Created by statute, and includes statutory members and Administrative Patent Judges Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings The PTAB is charged with rendering decisions
More informationDuh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application
Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application By: Tom Bakos, FSA, MAAA Co-Editor, Insurance IP Bulletin Patents may be granted in the U.S. for inventions that are new and useful. The term new means
More informationPaper Entered: May 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 129 571-272-7822 Entered: May 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner v. TESSERA, INC. Patent
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationPaper 12 Tel: Entered: April 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 30, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. SEMICONDUCTOR
More informationUS Patent Prosecution Duty to Disclose
July 12, 2016 Terri Shieh-Newton, Member Therasense v. Becton Dickinson & Co., (Fed. Cir. en banc May 25, 2011) Federal Circuit en banc established new standards for establishing both 10 materiality and
More informationAmerica 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 informationAIA 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 informationT 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 informationIP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA
IP CONCLAVE 2010, MUMBAI STRATEGIES WITH US PATENT PRACTICE NAREN THAPPETA US PATENT ATTORNEY & INDIA PATENT AGENT BANGALORE, INDIA www.iphorizons.com Not legal Advise! Broad Organization A. Pre filing
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1507 (Serial No. 08/405,454) IN RE JOHN B. SULLIVAN and FINDLAY E. RUSSELL Lawrence M. Green, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., of Boston, Massachusetts,
More informationPaper Entered: August 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12 571-272-7822 Entered: August 29, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES,
More informationChapter 2300 Interference Proceedings
Chapter 2300 Interference Proceedings 2301 Introduction 2301.01 Statutory Basis 2301.02 Definitions 2301.03 Interfering Subject Matter 2302 Consult an Interference Practice Specialist 2303 Completion of
More information2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World
2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR 54643-60 (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World ROY D. GROSS Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford,
More informationPresented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016
Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 2016 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Overview Introduction to Proceedings Challenger
More informationPlausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1. As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009
Plausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1 As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009 Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board
More informationProsecuting Patent Applications: Establishing Unexpected Results
Page 1 of 9 Prosecuting Patent Applications: Establishing Unexpected Results The purpose of this article is to provide suggestions on how to effectively make a showing of unexpected results during prosecution
More informationPatent Term Patent Term Extension Patent Term Adjustment
Patent Term Patent Term Extension Patent Term Adjustment PATENT TERM Patent Term (Utility & Plant) June 8, 1978 June 8, 1995 1 2 3 Patent Term (Utility & Plant) 1 June 8, 1978 June 8, 1995 Zone 1 Issued
More informationInequitable Conduct Judicial Developments
Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Duke Patent Law Institute May 16, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1247 RONALD E. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationPaper Entered: September 23, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: September 23, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FELLOWES, INC. Petitioner v. SPECULATIVE PRODUCT DESIGN,
More informationJohn Doll Commissioner for Patents. February 1, 2006
John Doll Commissioner for Patents February 1, 2006 USPTO Request for Public Input: Strategic Planning Agency developing new strategic plan Part of budget process Planning for at least six-year period
More informationDon t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! Reyna), was a 35 USC 256 action to correct inventorship on two patents
Don t Forget That Inventorship Issues Can Be Determined in an Interference! By Charles L. Gholz 1 Hor v. Chu, F.3d, USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2012)(opinion by C.J. Prost, joined by C.J. Newman; concurring
More informationIn the Wake of KSR: Sea Change or Wait-and-See?
In the Wake of KSR: Sea Change or Wait-and-See? Tom Elkind Partner Foley & Lardner LLP Roger Kitterman Associate Director Center for Innovative Ventures, Partners Healthcare Curtis Rose Assistant General
More informationUnited 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 informationUSPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery
Client Alert August 21, 2012 USPTO Trials: Understanding the Scope and Rules of Discovery By Bryan P. Collins Discovery may perhaps be one of the most difficult items for clients, lawyers, and their adversaries
More informationDerived Patents and Derivation Proceedings: The AIA Creates New Issues In Litigation And PTO Proceedings
Derived Patents and Derivation Proceedings: The AIA Creates New Issues In Litigation And PTO Proceedings Walter B. Welsh The Michaud-Kinney Group LLP Middletown, Connecticut I. INTRODUCTION. The Leahy-Smith
More informationPatent Prosecution. A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C
Patent Prosecution Decisions Relating to Obviousness Reiections Under 35 U.S.C. 61 03(a) 1) Graham v. John Deere (148 USPQ 459) A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationPaper Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK
More informationFenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice
Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L
More informationA Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination
A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination Webinar Guidelines Participants are in listen-only mode Submit questions via the Q&A box on the bottom right panel
More information2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp. AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO
2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO Board Practice Tips & Pitfalls Jonathan Hudis Quarles & Brady LLP (Moderator) George C. Pologeorgis Administrative Trademark
More informationNew Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY October 2007 New Patent Application Rules Set to Take Effect November 1, 2007 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued new rules for the patent application
More informationPaper Entered: May 21, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: May 21, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC.,
More informationIn the Supreme Court s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int l, the Supreme
In the Supreme Court s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int l, the Supreme Court cemented a two-step framework for determining whether a patent claim is ineligible for patenting under 101. The
More informationPaper Entered: January 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 60 571-272-7822 Entered: January 11, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVX CORPORATION and AVX FILTERS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
More informationAmerica 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 informationThe 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 information35 U.S.C. 135 Gateway to Priority and Derivation Determinations by the BPAI
35 U.S.C. 135 Gateway to Priority and Derivation Determinations by the BPAI By Todd Baker TODD BAKER is a partner in Oblon Spivak McClelland Maier & Neustadt s Interference and Electrical/Mechanical Departments.
More informationThe 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 informationPaper Entered: October 2, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: October 2, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MOORE ROD & PIPE, LLC., Petitioner, v. WAGON TRAIL VENTURES,
More informationA Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO
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 A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Intellectual Ventures I, LLC; Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-10860-PBS Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States
More informationAmerica 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 informationPost-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues
Post-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues Grant Shackelford Sughrue Mion, PLLC 2018 1 Agenda Background: PTAB's partial institution practice SAS Decision Application of
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 31, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Petitioner,
More informationPatents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information
Patents and the Protection of Proprietary Biotechnology Information Susan Haberman Griffen Anna Tsang Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP May 20, 2005 Page 1 2005 DISCLAIMER These materials
More information