America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012
|
|
- Amy Wells
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 America Invents Act Implementing Rules September 2012
2 AIA Rules (Part 2) Post Grant Review Inter Partes Review Section 18 Proceedings Derivation Proceedings Practice before the PTAB 2
3 Post Grant Review An opposition proceeding that allows a third party to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. patent Only available to challenge a patent with a claim having an effective filing date of 3/16/2013 or later (FITF patents only) May be based on any ground under 101, 102, 103 or 112, except Best Mode May be requested no later than 9 months after grant of patent 3
4 Post Grant Review (cont d) WHO may file a petition for PGR? Anyone except the patent owner who has not previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of a patent claim Unless petitioner, its privy, or real party in interest is estopped from challenging the claims (e.g., based upon a decision in a PGR or IPR) 4
5 Post Grant Review (cont d) Petitioner Files Petition and supporting evidence and Serves on Patent Owner (PO) Fee: 1-20 claims: $35,800; ea. add l claim: $800 Petition must: Establish Standing Identify all real parties in interest Identify each challenged claim and provide supporting evidence Claim construction 5
6 Post Grant Review (cont d) PO may file Preliminary Response: Setting forth reasons why PGR should be denied May not include amendment May include statutory disclaimer No new discovery (unless authorized by Board) 6
7 Post Grant Review (cont d) Institution of PGR Trial before PTAB if: Information in Petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged in the petition is unpatentable OR Petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or applications If more than one Petition for PGR is granted, the PGRs may be consolidated into a single trial 7
8 Post Grant Review (cont d) PO files Response & Motion to Amend Affidavits, declarations, additional factual evidence, and expert opinions may be submitted One motion to amend claims by right / additional motions may be authorized Petitioner Reply to Opposition File Observations & Motions to Exclude Evidence Oral Hearing if requested 8
9 PGR Timeline Within 9 mos of Patent Grant: Petitioner files for PGR Within 3 mos : PO s Preliminary Response/Waiver Within 3 mos: Decision on Petition; PGR instituted Within 3 mos: PO discovery period / Response Motions to Amend due Within 3 mos: Petitioner Discovery Period /Reply and Opp n to Motion Within 1 mo: PO Discovery Period / PO s Reply to Opp n to Motion Within 1 year after PGR Grant: PGR complete (can be extended up to 6 mos.) 9
10 Post Grant Review Practice Tips PGR is very fast-paced, so parties should try to be prepared in advance: Watch Competitors patent filings and prosecution to be prepared for filing Petition as soon as possible after Grant Don t file Petition too close to the 9-month postgrant date because if petition is defective, there may not be time to correct it Patent Owner: Be aware of Competitors activities so a PGR petition can be anticipated 10
11 Inter Partes Review (IPR) A new procedure created by the AIA, replacing Inter Partes Reexamination Final Rules for IPR must be read together with the Rules for trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Notable provisions include those relating to who may petition for IPR and the threshold for grant Applies to all issued patents Estoppel (like Inter Partes Reexam) but kicks in upon written decision of PTAB, not after all appeals 11
12 Inter Partes Review-Who May File Anyone except the patent owner may file a petition for IPR unless: Petitioner or real party in interest has already filed a civil action challenging validity Petitioner, real party in interest, or privy was sued for infringement more than one year ago Petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is estopped from challenging on identified grounds, i.e., via a final decision in an IPR, a post-grant review, or a covered business method review 12
13 Inter Partes Review (IPR)-Threshold Reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail on at least one of the challenged claims Decision to grant will be based in part on any preliminary response filed by the patent owner Patent owner may file such a preliminary response within 3 months after notice of IPR request filing date 13
14 Inter Partes Review-Practice Tips If your client (or a privy) is already a defendant in a civil action for patent infringement, be aware that you have just one year from the filing of the complaint to file an IPR petition Ensure that the petition and supporting evidence meet the heightened reasonable likelihood standard Anticipate arguments that the patent owner might make in any preliminary response 14
15 Transitional Program for Business Method Patents New program continues strong scrutiny on business method patents Can challenge patentability on more grounds Senator Chuck Schumer advocated the transitional program to confront the DataTreasury situation (Check image processing patents) Starts September 16, 2012 Program expires eight years after it begins operation (hence transitional) 15
16 Transitional Program - Restrictions Only Covered Business Method Patents are subject to the program A Covered Business Method Patent is: A patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing operations or other operations Utilized in the practice, administration or management of a financial product or service Except that the term shall not include patents for technological inventions Final Rules: described as squishy 16
17 Transitional Program Restrictions What are technological inventions? Proposed rules (adopted in the final rules): this will be decided on a case-by-case basis Considerations: Whether the claimed subject matter as a whole: (1) recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and (2) solves a technical problem using a technical solution Patents subject to covered business method patent review are anticipated to be typically classifiable in Class 705 Only entities who have been sued for or charged with infringement of the patent are eligible petitioners 17
18 18
19 19
20 Practice Tips If thinking about filing such a petition: May want to wait to see how the first set of petitions are treated How are they interpreting Technological Inventions? Are they including all, some, or most e-commerce type patents? If you are on the receiving end: See if can challenge standing (DJ standard) in the PO s preliminary response Accordingly, if sending out a threat letter, word it without a threat of infringement (invitation to license) 20
21 Practice Tips (continued) When drafting Business Method type applications: How does the spec characterize the invention Place items in spec and claims to give arguments that this is not a Covered Business Method Point to limitations in the claims that refer to a technological structure Lowry claims (data structure claims) 21
22 Transitional Program - Distinct Advantages Review based on more statutory provisions Can request a stay of any corresponding litigation File an interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit if the district court denies the request for a stay Estoppel is less restrictive Unlike certain other review procedures: Applies to any covered business method patent issued before, on, or after September 16,
23 Derivation Derivation proceedings to resolve disputes arising as to which of two applicants is a true inventor Petitioner later applicant Respondent earlier applicant alleged to have derived claimed invention from inventor named in petitioner s application Applies to applications for patent, or any patent issuing thereon, that are subject to first-inventor-tofile provisions of the AIA Conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 23
24 Derivation Timing petition must be filed within one year of the first publication by the earlier applicant of a claim to the same or substantially the same invention First publication means either issuance of a patent or publication of an application under Section 122(b), including publication of an international application (in any language) designating the U.S. 24
25 Derivation Grounds for standing Petitioner must be an applicant for patent Petition must be timely filed Petitioner must have at least one claim that is: the same or substantially the same as respondent s claimed invention and the same or substantially the same as the invention communicated to respondent Same or substantially the same means patentably indistinct 25
26 Derivation Petition must demonstrate that The invention was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner s application Derivation requires a showing of earlier corroborated conception by the petitioner s inventor corroborated communication of conception to respondent s inventor Petitioner s inventor did not authorize the filing of respondent s application 26
27 Derivation Evidentiary burden for initiation of derivation proceeding Petition must be supported by substantial evidence that, if unrebutted, would support a determination of derivation At least one affidavit addressing communication of the derived invention and lack of authorization to file the respondent s application communication must be corroborated 27
28 Derivation Board actions on petition When standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, a derivation proceeding may be instituted Action may be deferred until 3 months after respondent s patent issues claiming the subject matter of the petition termination of any ex parte reexamination, inter partes review or post-grant review of respondent s patent Determination of whether to initiate a proceeding is final and nonappealable 28
29 Derivation Ultimate outcomes of derivation proceeding Board shall determine whether an inventor of the earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor of the petitioner s application and, without authorization, filed the earlier application Board may correct inventorship of any involved application or patent 29
30 Derivation Terminating the proceeding Parties may terminate/settle proceeding with a written statement reflecting their agreement as to correct inventors Board must take action consistent with agreement unless it finds the agreement to be inconsistent with the evidence of record Settlement agreements must be filed and their availability may be restricted to Government agencies and persons showing good cause 30
31 Derivation Practice Tips Promptly monitor issued patents, published U.S. applications and international applications designating the U.S. so that any derivation petition can be filed within one year Continue presently-recommended notebook keeping and witnessing to defend against derivation allegations to show corroborated conception to show corroborated communication to opponent 31
32 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Constitution and Duties of the Board Board members include Director, Deputy Director, Commissioner for Patents, Commissioner for Trademarks, and administrative patent judges. Duties of Board are to: (1) review adverse decisions of examiners upon an application for a patent; (2) review appeals of reexaminations; (3) conduct derivation proceedings; and (4) conduct inter partes reviews and post-grant reviews (including business method patent review). Each appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review and inter partes review must be heard by at least 3 members of the Board. 32
33 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Fees ( 42.15) Petition for Inter Partes Review: (1) 1 to 20 claims -- $27,200 (2) Each claim in excess of $600 Petition of Post Grant Review: (1) 1 to 20 claims -- $35,800 (2) Each claim in excess of $800 Petition for Derivation Proceeding: $400 33
34 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Representative Timeline 34
35 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board General Provisions As a rule of construction, all Board rules must be construed to achieve the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of Board proceedings. ( 42.1(b)) Default evidentiary standard for each issue in a Board proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. ( 42.1(d)) Final decision of Board must be issued not less than 1 year after the institution of the review, extendable for good cause shown. (35 U.S.C. 326(a)(11)) Ex parte communications may result in sanctions against the initiating party. Prohibition includes communicating with any member of a panel without including the opposing party in the communications. ( 42.5(d)) 35
36 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board General Briefing Provisions Papers filed with Board required to meet standards similar to those required in patent prosecution under 37 C.F.R. 1.52(a), and in filings at the Federal Circuit under Fed. R. App. P. 32. Documents must be filed electronically. Filing by other means requires a motion explaining the need to file in a non-electronic format. ( 42.6(b)) Page Limits on petitions, motions, oppositions and replies ( 42.24(a)) : Petitions requesting inter partes review and derivation proceedings - 60 page limit Petitions requesting post-grant review and covered business method patents - 80 page limit Motions - 15 page limit Oppositions page limits for oppositions are the same as those for corresponding petitions or motions. Replies to patent owner responses to petitions 15 page limit Replies to motions -- 5 page limit 36
37 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Mandatory Notice Provisions Certain mandatory notices would be required, including identification of the real parties in interest, related matters, lead and back-up counsel, and service information. ( 42.8) Examples of related matters include every application and patent claiming, or which may claim, the benefit of the priority of the filing date of the parties involved patent or application, as well as any ex parte and inter partes reexaminations for an involved patent. Board may require designation of lead counsel. Should also designate back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel. ( 42.10(a)) 37
38 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Petition and Motion Practice Relief, other than a petition to institute a trial, must be in the form of a motion. ( 42.20) Motions will not be entered absent Board authorization. ( 42.20(b)) Generally, the Board expects that authorization would follow the current Board practice where a conference call would be required before an opposed motion is filed. Each petition or motion must be filed as a separate paper and must include: (1) a statement of the precise relief requested; and (2) a full statement of the reasons of the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing law, rules, and precedent. ( 42.22(a)) Each petition or motion must include a statement of material facts with each material fact set forth as a separately numbered paragraph with specific citations to the record. 38
39 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Testimony and Production Limited Discovery: The burden of justifying discovery in Board proceedings lies with the party seeking discovery. Routine Discovery: The proposed rules provide for the routine discovery of exhibits cited in a paper or testimony and provide for cross examination of affidavit testimony without the need to request Board authorization. Inconsistent Positions: Parties are required to provide information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the patent owner or petitioner during the course of the proceeding. This rule does not override legally-recognized privileges such as attorney-client or attorney work product. 39
40 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Testimony and Production (cont.) Additional Discovery - The parties may agree to additional discovery among themselves. Any additional discovery not agreed upon by the parties must be approved by the Board. Inter Partes Reviews and Derivation Proceedings Additional discovery granted upon a showing that the additional discovery sought is in the interests of justice. This standard places an affirmative burden on the party seeking discovery to show how the proposed discovery would be productive. The moving party would be required to show that it was fully diligent in seeking discovery and that there is no undue prejudice to the non-moving party. Post-Grant Proceedings -- Additional discovery in post grant proceedings and covered business method patent reviews is granted upon a showing of good cause. To show good cause a party would be required to make a particular and specific demonstration of fact. This is a slightly lower standard than 40 the interests of justice standard.
41 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Testimony and Production (cont.) Compelling Testimony - A party seeking a subpoena to compel testimony must first obtain Board authorization. (Proposed 42.52) Direct testimony to be generally provided in the form of an affidavit. (Proposed 42.53) Cross-examination testimony and redirect testimony to be generally provided in the form of a deposition transcript. Live testimony may be authorized or required by the Board if the nature of the testimony makes direct observation of witness demeanor necessary or desirable. (Proposed 42.53) 41
42 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Protective Orders Board may, for good cause, issue a protective order: (1) Forbidding disclosure or discovery; (2) Specifying terms, including time and place, for disclosure or discovery; (3) Prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) Forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters; (5) Designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted; (6) Requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only by order of the Board; (7) Requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specific way; and/or (8) Requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the Board directs. 42
43 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Oral Argument A party may request oral argument on an issue raised in a paper. ( 42.70) Federal Rules of Evidence generally apply. ( 42.62) All evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit, including affidavits, deposition transcripts and documents. Termination/Settlement A trial may be terminated upon joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed. ( 42.72) The Board is not a party to a settlement agreement and may take any necessary action, including determination of patentability notwithstanding a settlement. The Board may proceed to a final written decision even if no petitioner remains in the proceeding. ( 42.74) 43
44 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Estoppel ( 42.73(d)) Patent Owner A patent owner whose claim is canceled is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including in any patent: (1) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim; or (2) An amendment of a specification or of a drawing that was denied during the trial proceeding, but this provision does not apply to an application or patent that has a different written description. Petitioner -- The petitioner (other than in a derivation proceeding) is estopped in the Office from taking an action that is inconsistent with a judgment as to any ground that the petitioner could have raised during the trial. Does not apply to a petitioner who has settled. 44
45 Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Appeal of Board Decisions Board decisions may be appealed only to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Provides for judicial review of the final decisions of the Board in inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, covered business method patent reviews, and derivation proceedings. Also extends to any final decision in an interference commenced before the effective date. 45
46 End 46
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 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 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 information2012 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 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 informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck What is included in Post-Grant Reform in the U.S.? Some current procedures are modified and some new ones
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 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 informationBCLT 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 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 informationU.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 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-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 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 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 informationPart V: Derivation & Post Grant Review
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review Presented By: Karl Renner, Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March
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 informationIPRs 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 informationNewly 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 informationSEC. 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 informationStrategic 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 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 informationInter 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 informationTECHNOLOGY & 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 informationAmerica 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 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 informationConsiderations 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 informationPost-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 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 informationPatent 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 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 informationUSPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Janet.Gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734 Three Pillars of the AIA 11/30/2011 2 Speed Prioritized examination
More informationPost-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 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 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 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 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 informationThe 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 informationIntellectual 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(B) in section 316(a) 2. (i) in paragraph (11), by striking 3. section 315(c) and inserting section 4. (ii) in paragraph (12), by striking 6
(B) in section (a) (i) in paragraph (), by striking section (c) and inserting section (d) ; and (ii) in paragraph (), by striking section (c) and inserting section (d) ; and (C) in section (a), by striking
More informationUSPTO PUBLISHES FINAL RULES FOR DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER AMERICA INVENTS ACT
USPTO PUBLISHES FINAL RULES FOR DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER AMERICA INVENTS ACT October 19, 2012 The United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") has now published its final rules for implementing
More informationPOST GRANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oblon Spivak
POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Oblon Spivak Foreword by Honorable Gerald Mossinghoff, former Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and Stephen Kunin, former Deputy Commissioner
More informationPresented 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 informationSughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley 7/2/2012
Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley www.sughrue.com This presentation is for educational purposes only, and it does not provide legal advice or comment on the application of
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 informationAmerica 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 informationPolicies 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 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 informationCBM Eligibility and Reviewability
CBM Eligibility and Reviewability Karl Renner John Phillips Andrew Patrick Webinar Series March 12, 2014 Agenda #fishwebinar @FishPostGrant I. Overview of Webinar Series II. Statistics III. Covered Business
More informationAMERICA 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 informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! 1 Quarterly Federal Circuit and Supreme
More informationAmerica 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 informationFriend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Asserting rights are no longer the province of pencil-pushing technology companies. Many businesses, big and small
More informationPresentation to SDIPLA
Presentation to SDIPLA Anatomy of an IPR Trial by Andrea G. Reister Chair, Patent Office and Advisory Practice Covington & Burling LLP February 20, 2014 Outline 1. Overview 2. Preliminary Phase 3. Decision
More information18-MONTHS POST-AIA: HOW HAS PATENT LITIGATION. Rebecca Hanovice, Akarsh Belagodu, Lauren Bruzzone and Clay Holloway
CHEAT SHEET Increased petitioner participation and evidence gathering throughout the AIA post-grant proceeding provides more incentive for petitioners to pursue patent office litigation. Decreased opportunities
More informationWhat is Post Grant Review?
An Overview of the New Post Grant Review Proceedings at the USPTO Michael Griggs, Boyle Fredrickson May 15, 2015 What is Post Grant Review? Trial proceedings at the USPTO created by the America Invents
More informationInter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial
Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Inter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post
More informationThe 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 informationIntersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing
Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing May 28, 2014 R. David Donoghue Holland & Knight LLP 131 South Dearborn
More informationPost 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$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA
AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS John B. Scherling Antony M. Novom Sughrue Mion, PLLC July 30, 2013 1 $2 to $8 million 2 1 $1.8 billion $1.5 billion $1.2 billion
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 informationPaper Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
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 informationChapter 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 informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules. Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc.
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc. Christopher B. Tokarczyk Attorney at Law Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC - 1 - I. Introduction
More informationSession 1A: Preparing an IPR Petition Tips from a Petitioner Perspective
2014 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 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 informationDiscovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act
2013 Korea-US IP Judicial Conference (IPJC) Seminar 1 Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act Nicholas Groombridge Discovery in District Court Litigations
More informationTerminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D. Dennies Varughese, Pharm. D. Trey Powers, Ph.D. I. Introduction Among the myriad changes precipitated
More informationStreamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures
RESOLUTIONS, LLC s GUIDE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures 1. Scope of Rules The RESOLUTIONS, LLC Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures ("Rules") govern binding
More informationSTATUS 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 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 informationIl brevetto USA alla luce delle nuove regole e dei nuovi scenari competitivi
Il brevetto USA alla luce delle nuove regole e dei nuovi scenari competitivi Nuove strategie e procedure per la valorizzazione del IP Summer School Netval e Università Bologna Bertinoro 12.09.2012 Francesco
More informationCORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS
CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS 2012 IP Summer Seminar Peter Corless Partner pcorless@edwardswildman.com July 2012 2012 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Types of Correction Traditional
More informationProtecting Biopharmaceutical Innovation Litigation and Patent Office Procedures
Protecting Biopharmaceutical Innovation Litigation and Patent Office Procedures Janet Gongola, Senior Advisor Office of the Under Secretary and Director Janet.gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734
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 informationPATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES
PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES BY: Juan Carlos A. Marquez Stites & Harbison PLLC 1 OVERVIEW I. Summary Overview of AIA Provisions II. Portfolio Building Side
More informationPost-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus
Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus I. CHALLENGING PATENT VALIDITY AT THE PTO VIA POST-GRANT REVIEW, INTER PARTES REVIEW, BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW, AND REEXAMINATION
More information2011 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 informationU.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins *
David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * Since the June grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, 1 the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might find inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial
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 informationCorrection of Patents
Correction of Patents Seema Mehta Kelly McKinney November 9, 2011 Overview: Three Options Certificate of Correction Reissue Reexamination in view of the America Invents Act (AIA) Certificate of Correction
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 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 informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
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
More informationHow Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice. Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice
How Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice Fish & Richardson May 8, 2013 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationPatent Reform State of Play
Patent Reform Beyond the Basics: Exposing Hidden Traps, Loopholes, Landmines Powered by Andrew S. Baluch April 15, 2016 1 Patent Reform State of Play Congress 8 bills pending Executive Agencies IPR Final
More informationAmerica 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 informationPaper Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: July 29, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB; AXIS
More informationPre-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 informationPATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS
PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS Patentable Subject Matter, Prior Art, and Post Grant Review Christine Ethridge Copyright 2014 by K&L Gates LLP. All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER The statements and views expressed
More informationWhere to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO
Washington, D.C. Where to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO Jeffery P. Langer, PhD U.S. Patent Attorney, Partner, Washington,
More informationPaper Date Entered: July 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Date Entered: July 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC., and T-MOBILE USA INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. REPORT TO CONGRESS on INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION. Executive Summary
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE REPORT TO CONGRESS on INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION Executive Summary The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examines patent applications and grants
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 Entered: September 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: September 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD., BROAD OCEAN
More informationPaper Date Entered: November 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 571-272-7822 Date Entered: November 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., Petitioner, v. VIRNETX INC., Patent
More information