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

Size: px
Start display at page:

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

Transcription

1 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 Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago, IL Today s Highlights 2 USPTO s AIA Post-Grant Big Picture Highlights Overview of AIA Trial Proceeding Structure Proceeding-Specific Rules Inter Partes Review (IPR) Post-Grant Review (PGR) Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM) Umbrella Rules and Practice Guide Petitioner s Strategy Patent Owner s Strategy 1

2 Featured Speakers 3 Teresa Stanek Rea, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and Deputy Director of the USPTO Ms. Rea joined the USPTO in 2011 as Deputy Director. She is a leading attorney in the field of intellectual property with more than 25 years of legal experience and a past president of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). Before joining the USPTO, Ms. Rea was partner at a firm in Washington, D.C. where she focused on intellectual property and dispute resolution related to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life science issues. Rea has experience in drafting infringement and validity opinions, as well as experience in interference and licensing matters. Featured Speakers 4 James D. Smith, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, USPTO Appointed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences on May 8, 2011 Has had a long career in the law and in IP, including a brief time as an examiner at the USPTO Formerly served as in-house counsel for Lexmark and Nokia and most recently as Associate General Counsel and Chief IP Counsel of Baxter International 2

3 Foley Speaker 5 Andrew S. Baluch, Special Counsel and Vice Chair, Patent Office Trials Practice Mr. Baluch advises companies on global IP strategies, including international portfolio management, IP diligence reviews, opinions, licensing, litigation, patent reexamination, and trade secret protection. He is a former director of international IP enforcement in the White House Office of the IP Enforcement Coordinator. Prior to his White House appointment, he was an expert legal advisor to the under secretary and director of the USTPO. Moderator 6 Matthew A. Smith, Partner and Chair, Patent Office Trials Practice Mr. Smith serves as chair of the firm s Patent Office Trials Group and is a member of the IP Litigation Group. He focuses his practice on patent disputes, in particular those having a complex USPTO component. He has advised clients in connection with numerous litigations and more than 80 patent reexamination proceedings. 3

4 Administrative Patent Trials Before The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Teresa Stanek Rea, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for IP and Deputy Director of the USPTO James D. Smith, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, USPTO Overview Overview of AIA Trial Proceeding Structure Discussion of Proceeding-Specific Rules Inter Partes Review (IPR) Post-Grant Review (PGR) Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM) Discussion of Umbrella Rules and Practice Guide 8 4

5 AIA Trial Proceedings 9 AIA Trial Proceedings Representative timeline: 3 < < 3 months Trial Begins < One Year 10 5

6 Major Differences between IPR, PGR, and CBM 11 Threshold Standards for Institution PGR/CBM: Greater than 50% chance IPR: May encompass a 50/50 chance 12 6

7 Administrative Patent Trials In general, a person who is not the patent owner may file an IPR/PGR/CBM petition in the following time periods: 13 Inter Partes Review All patents are eligible for an IPR. 6(c)(2)(A) of AIA. A person who is not the patent owner and has not previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent may file an IPR. 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1); An IPR petitioner may request to cancel, as unpatentable, one or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. 35 U.S.C. 311(b); (b)(2). An IPR petition cannot be filed until after the later of: 1) 9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a reissue of a patent; or 2) the date of termination of any post grant review of the patent. 35 U.S.C. 311(c); (a). 14 7

8 Inter Partes Review Petition must: Be accompanied by a fee. 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(1); & Identify all real parties in interest. 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(2); Identify all claims challenged and grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based. 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(3); (b). Provide a claim construction and show how the construed claim is unpatentable based on the grounds alleged (b). Provide copies of evidence relied upon. 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(5); 42.6(c). Certify that the petitioner is not estopped from proceeding (a). 15 Inter Partes Review Patent owner preliminary response A patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition to provide reasons why no IPR should be instituted. 35 U.S.C. 313; (a). Preliminary response is due 3 months from petition docketing date (b). Patent owners may provide testimonial evidence in a preliminary response where interests of justice so require, e.g., to demonstrate that petitioner s real party in interest is estopped from challenging patent claims. See Patent Guide, Section II.C. 16 8

9 Inter Partes Review Threshold and Institution An IPR petition must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail as to at least one of the claims challenged. 35 U.S.C. 314(a); (c). Where IPR standards are met, the Board will institute the trial on: 1) claim-by-claim basis; and 2) ground-by-ground basis (a) & (b). A party may request that panel rehears decision on petition (c) & (d). An IPR trial will be completed within one year from institution, except the time may be extended up to six months for good cause. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11); (c). 17 Inter Partes Review Patent owner response (35 U.S.C. 316(a)(8); ) A patent owner may file a response to petition addressing any ground for unpatentability not already denied by the Board. In submitting a response, the patent owner must file, through affidavits or declarations, any additional factual evidence and expert opinions on which the patent owner relies in support of the response. The default date for filing a patent owner response is 3 months from institution. 18 9

10 Inter Partes Review Motion to Amend (35 U.S.C. 316(a)(9), (b) & (d); ) Authorization is not required to file the initial motion to amend, but conferring with the Board is required. The motion to amend may cancel any challenged claim and/or propose a reasonable number of substitute claims. Additional motion to amend may be authorized for good cause, e.g., where supplemental information is belatedly submitted. Motions to amend may be limited to prevent abuse and to aid in efficient administration and timely completion of the proceeding. 19 Post-Grant Review Most aspects of PGR and IPR are effectively the same. There are some differences between a PGR and an IPR, such as: With limited exceptions, only those patents issuing from applications subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions are eligible. 6(f) of AIA. PGR allows challenges based on 101, 102, 103, and 112, except best mode. 35 U.S.C. 321(b); (b)(2). PGR may only be requested on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a reissue patent. 35 U.S.C. 321(c); (a). Petition must demonstrate that it is more likely than not (i.e., a higher threshold than IPR) that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. 324(a); (c)

11 Covered Business Methods CBM proceedings employ the PGR standards and procedures subject to certain exceptions. 18(a)(1) of AIA; (a). Differences between a CBM and a PGR include: Cannot file CBM petition during time a PGR petition could be filed, i.e., 9 months after issuance of a patent. 18(a)(2) of AIA. Petitioner must be sued or charged with infringement. 18(a)(1)(B) of AIA; (a). Petitioner has burden of establishing that patent is eligible for CBM review (a). Prior Art is limited when challenging a first-to-invent patent. 18(a)(1)(C) of AIA. 21 Covered Business Methods Eligible patents: Both first-to-invent and first-inventor-to-file patents are eligible. 6(f)(2)(A) & 18(a)(1) of AIA. Must be a covered business method patent. 18(d)(1) of AIA; Covered business method patent generally defined in the AIA as a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations for financial product or service. The definition excludes patents for technological inventions

12 Umbrella Rules Per statutory requirements, real parties in interest will have to be identified. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. 312(a)(2), 322(a)(2); 42.8(b)(1). Practice Guide (Section I. D) provides factors that may be considered in determining whether a party constitutes a real party in interest or privy. Additionally, both petitioner and patent owner will be required to provide a certain level of information necessary to conduct the proceeding including related proceedings, lead and backup counsel, and contact information ( addresses and phone numbers). 42.8(b). 23 Umbrella Rules Practice Before the Board in the Trial Proceedings The lead counsel must be a registered practitioner. The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the Office s Code of Professional Responsibility and any other conditions as the Board may impose (c). E.g., counsel is an experienced litigation attorney and has a familiarity with subject matter at issue. Similarly, the Board may take action to revoke pro hac vice status, taking into account various factors, including incompetence, unwillingness to abide by the Office s Code of Professional Responsibility, and incivility

13 Umbrella Rules Petition Fees ( 42.15) Proposed fee escalation in block increments of 10 claims has not been adopted in the final rule. Rather, the final rule establishes a flat fee for each additional challenged claim after Umbrella Rules Proposed page limits have been increased by 10 pages. The final rule provides the following ( 42.24): For claim charts, single spacing is permitted. 42.6(a)(2)(iii). Statement of material facts in a petition or motion is optional (c)

14 Umbrella Rules Testimony and document production is permitted AIA authorizes the Office to set standards and procedures for the taking of discovery. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5) & 326(a)(5). Discovery rules allow parties to agree to discovery between themselves (a)(1) & (b)(2). The final rules provide for mandatory initial disclosures, routine discovery, and additional discovery Umbrella Rules Routine discovery reduces costs to parties by making basic information readily available at the outset of the proceeding. Routine discovery may assist the parties to assess the merits of their respective positions, to avoid harassment in the proceeding, or to reach settlement (b)(1). Routine discovery includes documents cited, crossexamination for submitted testimony, and information inconsistent with positions advanced during the proceeding. Proposed rule on inconsistent statements has been modified to limit both scope and number of individuals subject to the rule (b)(1)(iii)

15 Umbrella Rules Additional discovery The parties may agree to additional discovery between themselves. Otherwise, a party must request any discovery beyond routine discovery. A party seeking additional discovery in IPR and derivation must demonstrate that the additional discovery is in the interests of justice. 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(5) for IPR; 42.51(c). A party seeking additional discovery in PGR and CBM will be subject to the lower good cause standard. 35 U.S.C. 326(a)(5) for PGR; Umbrella Rules Supplemental information (35 U.S.C. 316(a)(3); ) A request for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information must be made within one month after institution. The supplemental information must be relevant to a claim for which the trial has been instituted. Any supplemental information filed later than one month after institution must show why the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier and that consideration of the information would be in the interests-of-justice

16 Umbrella Rules Petitioner Estoppels After Final Written Decision A petitioner in an IPR/PGR/CBM may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to any claim on any ground raised or reasonably could have been raised. 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1), 325(e)(1); 42.73(d)(1). A petitioner in an IPR/PGR/CBM may not assert in district court or the ITC that a claim is invalid on any ground petitioner raised, and in IPR/PGR, any ground that reasonably could have been raised. 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2), 325(e)(2); 18(a)(1)(D) of AIA. 31 Umbrella Rules Patent Owner Estoppel ( 42.73(d)(3)) A patent owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment including obtaining in any patent: A claim that is patentably indistinct from a finally refused or canceled claim. An amendment of a specification or drawing that was denied during the trial, but this provision does not apply to an application or patent that has a different written description. The proposed estoppel provision as to claims that could have been presented was not adopted in the final rule

17 33 Petitioner s Strategy 8/27/ Balance of Power 34 How has the balance of power changed with the final rules? Major changes were relatively neutral. More flexibility in the Petition document. More flexibility in any motion to amend claims. Narrowing of Patent Owner estoppel ( 42.73(d)(3)) Timing: +1 month for PO preliminary response, +1 month for Petitioner reply, -1 month for PO response*, +1 month overall. *as versus the Practice Guide schedule. 17

18 Balance of Power 35 Overall strategic effect Major factor: availability of stays pending IPR Key decision points: Late 2012 March May 2013 Use of decision to institute Trial March May 2014 Petitioner Considerations 36 (1) Which case to make? Although there is more flexibility in the Petition, focus will be required. Narrow the prior art case Prediction: move away from Examinerstyle "rejections", toward omnibus obviousness challenges 18

19 Petitioner Considerations 37 (2) How does the Petitioner use experts? Key decision point Experts in litigation vs. reexamination Requirement for testimony? Submitting testimony subjects the expert to cross-examination. Petitioner Considerations 38 (3) Secondary evidence Secondary evidence may be more important. It is not just Patent Owner rebuttal evidence. The Petitioner may wish to develop secondary evidence of obviousness with the petition. 19

20 Petitioner Considerations 39 (4) Estoppel management 315(e) estoppels are claim-by-claim. Potential strategy: file on one set of claims first, then file on other claims after the Institution Decision or Final Written Decision. Potential downsides: 315(d), 316(a)(11), 325(d), and delay with respect to litigation. 40 Patent Owner s Strategy 20

21 Patent Owner s Strategy 41 Patent Owner Fall Back Strategies Defeat the petition (even as to some claims). Confirm patentability of all original claims. Confirm patentability of original dependent claims. Confirm patentability of new substitute claims (but subject to intervening rights). Settlement is available, but before a decision on merits Patent Owner s Strategy 42 Immediate Actions in Response to Petition 21 days File mandatory notices (real party-in-interest, related matters, lead and back-up counsel, service information) Earlier than 3 months Agree to a protective order to gain access to any confidential information in the petition Ask Board for pre-trial discovery (e.g., standing) Confer with Petitioner about initial disclosures 3 months File a Patent Owner Preliminary Response to the petition File any agreement reached on initial disclosures 21

22 Patent Owner s Strategy 43 Preliminary Response to Petition Due 3 months after petition Arguments Trial Practice Guide, II.C: 1. Petitioner is statutorily barred. 2. References are not prior art. 3. Prior art lacks a material claim limitation. 4. The prior art teaches or suggests away. 5. Unreasonable claim interpretation. 6. Section 101 patent-eligibility. Trial Practice Guide, II.D.2: The Board, in determining whether to institute, may take into account whether the review could be completed timely. New testimonial evidence is limited to what Board has authorized (e.g., petitioner s standing). Patent Owner s Strategy 44 Request for Rehearing of Petition Decision Due 14 days after decision to institute a trial Reviewed for abuse of discretion IPR Threshold: a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. 314(a). The reasonable likelihood test is currently used in evaluating whether a party is entitled to a preliminary injunction, and effectively requires the petitioner to present a prima facie case justifying a rejection of the claims in the patent. 157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (Mar. 8, 2011) (Sen. Kyl). 22

23 Patent Owner s Strategy 45 Claim Amendments Due with patent owner response (default deadline is 3 months after order) Motion may be denied if: amendment does not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial (42.121(a)(2)(i)); amendment would enlarge the claim scope or introduce new matter (42.121(a)(2)(ii)); amendment proposes more than a reasonable number of substitute claims presumed to be 1 claim (42.121(a)(3)); original claims are determined to be patentable (Trial Guide, II.G.3). Subject to intervening rights under 35 U.S.C Additional motions to amend as agreed to by both parties to advance settlement. Patent Owner s Strategy 46 Parallel Prosecution of Same Patent Reissue? Claim broadening is allowed within 2 years of grant Add new dependent claims under In re Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Availability of civil action under 35 U.S.C. 145 Patent Owner initiated Ex Parte Reexam? Non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting But Director has authority to stay, transfer, consolidat[e], or terminat[e] under 35 U.S.C. 315(d) 23

24 Additional Resources 47 Foley on Patent Reform: USPTO Implementation Guides: mplementation.jsp Follow-up Information 48 Matthew A. Smith, Partner and Chair, Patent Office Trials Practice Andrew S. Baluch, Special Counsel and Vice Chair, Patent Office Trials Practice Following today s discussion, these materials will be ed to attendees and posted online at Foley will apply for CLE credit and certificates to attendees in approximately 6-8 weeks. Thank you for joining us today. 24

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

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

More information

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012

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

More information

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

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

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

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

More information

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

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

More information

USPTO Post Grant Proceedings

USPTO 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 information

The New Post-AIA World

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

More information

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

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

More information

Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review

Part 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 information

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

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

More information

America 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 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 information

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

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

More information

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

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

More information

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

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

More information

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

USPTO 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 information

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

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

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

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

More information

Post-Grant Reviews Before The USPTO

Post-Grant Reviews Before The USPTO Post-Grant Reviews Before The USPTO Mark Selwyn Donald Steinberg Emily Whelan November 19, 2015 Attorney Advertising Unless legally required, all instructions, directions or recommendations contained herein

More information

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings

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

More information

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences

PTAB 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 information

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination

A 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 information

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

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

More information

Intersection 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 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 information

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC

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

More information

Considerations for the United States

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

More information

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check

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

More information

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings

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

More information

Patent Reform State of Play

Patent 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 information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger

Inter 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 information

Inter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial

Inter 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 information

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

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

More information

How To Fix The Amendment Fallacy

How 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 information

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

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

More information

Friend 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 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 information

CBM Eligibility and Reviewability

CBM 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 information

SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

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

More information

USPTO 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 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 information

Venue Differences. Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings 4/16/2015. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Venue 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 information

Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court

Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court Barbara A. Fiacco Duke Law Patent Institute May 14, 2013 Inter Partes Review 1 Overview Background: IPR by the numbers Standing/Privity

More information

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions

AIA 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 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 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 information

Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus

Post-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 information

The New PTAB: Best Practices

The 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 information

PATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.

PATENT 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 information

Session 1A: Preparing an IPR Petition Tips from a Petitioner Perspective

Session 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 information

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

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

More information

Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley 7/2/2012

Sughrue 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 information

Presentation to SDIPLA

Presentation 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 information

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

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

More information

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation

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

More information

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

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

More information

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings

The 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 information

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

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

More information

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

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

More information

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

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

More information

Post-Grant for Practitioners

Post-Grant for Practitioners Part XII: Inter Partes Review Highlights From the First Year+ Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Principals and Co-Chairs of Post-Grant Practice Webinar Series January 8, 2014 Agenda @FishPostGrant I. Overview

More information

CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS

CORRECTION 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 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

$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 information

Protecting Biopharmaceutical Innovation Litigation and Patent Office Procedures

Protecting 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 information

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL

SENATE 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 information

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

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

More information

A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO

A 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 information

What is Post Grant Review?

What 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 information

The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews

The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews By: Lawrence Stahl and Donald Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) includes

More information

Chapter 1. Introduction

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

More information

Patent Prosecution Update

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

More information

Reexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview

Reexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview Reexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview Eugene T. Perez, Esq. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP February 3, 2012

More information

Presented 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 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 information

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

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

More information

Executive Summary. 1 All three of the major IP law associations-- the American Bar Association IP Law Section, the American Intellectual Property

Executive Summary. 1 All three of the major IP law associations-- the American Bar Association IP Law Section, the American Intellectual Property Why The PTO s Use of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Patent Claims in Post- Grant and Inter Partes Reviews Is Inappropriate Under the America Invents Act Executive Summary Contrary to the recommendations

More information

INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS

INTER 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 information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

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

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

More information

18-MONTHS POST-AIA: HOW HAS PATENT LITIGATION. Rebecca Hanovice, Akarsh Belagodu, Lauren Bruzzone and Clay Holloway

18-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 information

Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up

Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up 1 Panelist Dr. Rouget F. (Ric) Henschel, Partner, Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice, and Co-Chair, Life Sciences Industry Team, Foley & Lardner Sven

More information

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Patent Resources Group Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION II. USER GUIDE: Overview of America Invents Act Changes with Respect to Prior Art III. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION

More information

USPTO PUBLISHES FINAL RULES FOR DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER AMERICA INVENTS ACT

USPTO 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 information

Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act

Discovery 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 information

Correction of Patents

Correction 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 information

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

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

More information

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

PATENT 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 information

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

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

More information

WilmerHale Webinar: Untangling IPR Estoppel and Navigating Into the Future

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

More information

AIA 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. 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 information

UNITED 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 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 information

Inter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity. Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner

Inter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity. Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Inter Partes Review: A New Tool for Challenging Patent Validity By Dorothy Whelan and Karl Renner Principals and Co-Chairs of Post-Grant Practice, Fish & Richardson Gwilym Attwell Principal, Fish & Richardson

More information

Sophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue. Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005

Sophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue. Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005 Sophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005 Strategies for Patentee AVOID REISSUES File Continuation Applications

More information

Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/20/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-20227, and on FDsys.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United

More information

Terminating Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Terminating 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 information

How to Handle Complicated IPRs:

How 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 information

Successfully 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. 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 information