New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
|
|
- Patricia Crawford
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013
2 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the authors and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the author and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the author or Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.
3 Pre-AIA Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences Filing Examining Corps Inter Partes Reexam Ex Parte Reexam Issuance Pre-issuance Submissions 3
4 AIA Options Patent Trial and Appeal Board Inter Partes Review Filing Examining Corps Post-Grant Review Ex Parte Reexam Issuance Pre-issuance Submissions (revised and improved) See De Corte, et al article, AIA Postgrant Review &European Oppositions: Will They Work In Tandem, Or Rather Pass Like Ships In The Night?, 14 NCLJ (Fall 2012) 4
5 Overview Ex Parte Reexam PGR IPR Effective New rules: Sept. 16, 2012 Timing Scope Threshold at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent Prior art patents or printed publications substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim Sept. 16, 2012, filed against claims with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 (AIA SEC 3(n)(1) claims). < or = 9 months after patent granted on an application filed on or after March 16, 2013 any ground of invalidity Director Kappos: PGR is only 101, 102, 103, 112 No IC or infringement Double patenting? more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable Sept. 16, 2012, filed on any U.S. patent in existence as of or after that date >9 months after issuance or if PGR is instituted, after the date of termination of the PGR (Pre-AIA patents -- no waiting period) only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications that raises issues under 102 or 103 reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail 5
6 PGR for Covered Business Methods (CBM) Timing of filing Patents filed before or after AIA Standing Must be sued or charged with infringing patent Patent must be covered business method and not technological invention Covered business method Method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service 6
7 Pending Inteferences SEC. 6 (f)(3) PENDING INTERFERENCES. (A) PROCEDURES IN GENERAL. The Director shall determine the procedures under which an interference commenced before the effective date set forth in paragraph (2)(A) is to proceed, including whether such interference (i) is to be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a petition for a post-grant review ; or (ii) is to proceed as if this Act had not been enacted. What does the PTO do with a mixed application (where AIA SEC. 3(n)(1) and 3(n)(2) apply)? 7
8 Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR): Not Anonymous; Specific Attack IPR PARTIES: 312(a)(2): Must identify all real parties in interest. SPECIFIC ATTACKS: 312(a)(3): Must identify each claim challenged, the grounds for each challenge, and the evidence supporting each challenge. Copies of patents and printed publications PGR PARTIES: 322(a)(2): Must identify all real parties in interest. SPECIFIC ATTACKS: 322(a)(3): Must identify each claim challenged, the grounds for each challenge, and the evidence supporting each challenge. Copies of patents and printed publications Affidavits or declarations Affidavits or declarations 8
9 PGR Threshold for Initiation 324(a): THRESHOLD. Director may not authorize a postgrant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable. Note contrast in language for IPR 314(a) threshold, which explicitly directs US PTO to consider the patentee s preliminary response. Also note, new 37 C.F.R includes consideration of patentee s preliminary response in determining PGR threshold. 9
10 PGR Threshold for Initiation 324(b) ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. The determination required under subsection (a) may also be satisfied by a showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications. Constitutional? USPTO indicated that this ground will be used sparingly. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 at 48,692 (Aug. 14, 2012)( Section (d) provides that a determination under (c) may be satisfied by a showing that the petition raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent applications. This rule is consistent with 35 U.S.C. 324(b). The expectation is that this ground for a post-grant review would be used sparingly. ) 10
11 IPR Threshold for Initiation 314(a): THRESHOLD. Director may not authorize a postgrant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. See also, new 37 C.F.R See December 2011 denials for inter partes request for reexam in 95/001,792 and 95/001,813 11
12 IPR: Threshold for Initiation SNQP more likely than not RLP prima facie case of unpatentability plus? reasonable likelihood of prevailing ( RLP ) higher than SNQP? But, USPTO indicated that reasonable likelihood standard for an IPR (said to mirror the preliminary injunction standard), is actually a lower standard than PGR s more likely than not. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680 at 48,702 (August 14, 2012) (Response to Comment 59). 12
13 Discovery in Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR DISCOVERY: 316(a)(5): discovery of relevant evidence, including that discovery shall be limited to: (A) deposition of witnesses submitting affidavits or declarations; (B) what is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice. Historically, a difficult discovery standard. routine discovery provisions (37 C.F.R (b)(1)) any exhibit cited in a paper or in testimony; cross examination of affidavit testimony; relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with the filing of the documents or things that contains the inconsistency. This requirement does not make discoverable anything otherwise protected by legally recognized privileges such as attorney-client or attorney work product. This requirement extends to inventors, corporate officers, and persons involved in the preparation or filing of the documents or things. 13
14 Discovery in Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR DISCOVERY: 316(a)(5) (con t) additional discovery upon showing in interests of justice (37 C.F.R (b)(2)(i)) moving party show that it was fully diligent in seeking discovery and that there is no undue prejudice to the non-moving party; totality of the relevant circumstances (Response to Comment 132, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612 at 48,641 (Aug. 14, 2012) 14
15 the mere possibility of finding something useful is insufficient IPR Discovery Decision Garmin International Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, IPR (March 5, 2013) PTAB: Request too broad and did not meet standard of interests of justice conspicuously absent from Cuozzo's motion is a threshold amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that the information to be discovered will be 'useful' to Cuozzo. the mere possibility of finding something useful is insufficient to grant a discovery request. 15
16 Discovery in Post-Grant Review (PGR) PGR DISCOVERY: 326(a)(5): discovery of relevant evidence, including that such discovery shall be limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either party in the proceeding; routine discovery provisions (37 C.F.R (b)(1)) any exhibit cited in a paper or in testimony; cross examination of affidavit testimony; relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with the filing of the documents or things that contains the inconsistency. This requirement does not make discoverable anything otherwise protected by legally recognized privileges such as attorney-client or attorney work product. This requirement extends to inventors, corporate officers, and persons involved in the preparation or filing of the documents or things. 16
17 Discovery in Post-Grant Review (PGR) PGR DISCOVERY: 326(a)(5) (con t) additional discovery (37 C.F.R (b)(2)(i) limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either party in the proceeding (see ).» Discovery. Notwithstanding the discovery provisions of subpart A: (a) Requests for additional discovery may be granted upon a showing of good cause as to why the discovery is needed; and (b) Discovery is limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either party in the proceeding. 17
18 IPR Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR): Estoppel ESTOPPEL: 315(e): If final written decision under 318(a), estoppel before USPTO, district court, or ITC on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review. (petitioner/real party in interest/privy) PGR ESTOPPEL: 325(e): If final written decision under 328(a), estoppel before USPTO, district court, or ITC on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review. (petitioner/real party in interest/privy) Same as PGR but possibly narrower in scope because fewer issues can be raised in IPR. Estoppel only runs one way - issues raised by the petitioner in litigation or that could have been raised by the petitioner in litigation can still be relied on for PGR, IPR or ex parte reexam. 18
19 No Estoppel Attaches If Parties Settle Before Termination IPR SETTLEMENT: 317(a): allowed no estoppel attaches to petitioner if IPR is terminated. if no petitioner remains in the IPR, then Office may terminate the IPR or proceed to final written decision. PGR SETTLEMENT: 327(a): allowed No estoppel attaches to petitioner if PGR is terminated. If no petitioner remains in the PGR, then Office may terminate the PGR or proceed to final written decision See also 37 C.F.R (d)(1) 19
20 Note: Rules Set Out Patent Owner Estoppel Too! 42.73(d)(3) Patent applicant or owner. A patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent: (i) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim; or (ii) 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. 20
21 Patentee Possibility? Strategy: Put in at least one hundred claims in each patent application to protect fully the invention? Force challenger to spend more to challenge all the claims? PGR $12000 file petition for up to 20 claims; $250/claim for every claim over 20 ( if PGR instituted). IPR $9000 file petition for up to 20 claims, $200/claim for every claim over 20 ( if IPR instituted). 21
22 Practice Tips 9-month from issuance time limit for PGR -> increase efforts to monitor/analyze competitors patents and dates. Estoppel provisions of PGR and IPR -> carefully consider arguments before filing PGR/IPR and possible estoppel effect. If too limited, worth the risk of big estoppel? Will Ex Parte Reexam, with no estoppel and anonymity be better? 22
23 Slide from USPTO APJ Tierney AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 1, 2013 Inter Partes Review Post-Grant Review Umbrella Trial Rules Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent Review Derivation Proceeding Proposed
24 Slide from USPTO APJ Tierney AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 1, 2013 AIA Trial Proceedings 24
25 Slide from USPTO APJ Tierney AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 1, PTAB Inter Partes and CBM Filings (Sept 17, April 29, 2013) Inter Partes CBM Total 25
26 CBM petition denied, 3 PTAB Decisions CBM trial instituted, 9 IPR trial instituted, 22 IPR petition denied, 1 IPR petition dismissed, 1 Source: Trybus, et al, Patent Trial And Appeal Board Contested Proceedings The First Six Months, BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal -- Daily Update, April 29,
27 Most Active Petitioners Oracle, Corning, 10 Liberty Mutual, Petitioners Source: Trybus, et al, Patent Trial And Appeal Board Contested Proceedings The First Six Months, BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal -- Daily Update, April 29,
28 Slide from USPTO APJ Tierney AIPLA Spring Meeting, May 1, 2013 Technology Breakdowns of AIA Petitions as of April 29, 2013 Technology Number of Petitions Percentage Electrical/ Computer % Mechanical % Chemical % Bio/Pharma % Design 1 0.4%
29 15 Filings IPRs Source: McDermott Will & Emery LLP Report, Six-Month Report Card: Post-Issuance Proceedings Under the AIA, April CBM PGRs 182 total filings since Sept. 16, % for IPR, 8% for CBM PGR IPRs Filed Decided Granted or granted-inpart 167 IPR filings. Decision on petition in 14%, 92% granted or granted-in-part. Average time from filing petition to decision whether to institute a review =143 days CBM PGRs Filed Decided Granted or granted-in-art 15 CBM PGR filings. Decision on petition in 80%, 75% granted or granted-in-part. Average time from filing petition to decision whether to institute a review =140 days. 29
30 Lessons Learned So Far PTAB being very strict on compliance with rules. e.g., motions to waive page limit denied (but petitioners get around by filing multiple petitions) Even when granted petition, sometimes have granted based on only some of the claims and/or arguments set forth in petition. PTAB looking to narrow issues as soon as possible so can meet 1-year time frame. Declaratory judgment action not bar from filing an IPR petition if only seek a declaration of non-infringement. 30
31 Slide 60 of USPTO Presentation Feb. 25, 2013 The America Invents Act: Final Provisions to Become Effective Lessons Learned So Far Conclusions need to be supported by: Sound legal analysis Citations to evidentiary record Better to provide detailed analysis for limited number of challenges than identify large number of challenges for which little analysis is provided 31
32 Slide 61 of USPTO Presentation Feb. 25, 2013 The America Invents Act: Final Provisions to Become Effective Lessons Learned Claim Construction Claim constructions should be supported by citations to the record that justify the proffered construction and analysis provided as to why the claim construction is the broadest reasonable construction. 37 C.F.R (b)(3) An example of a failure to provide a sufficient claim construction occurs where claim terms are open to interpretation but party merely restates claim construction standard to be used, e.g., A claim subject to inter partes review receives the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R (b). 32
33 Slide 62 of USPTO Presentation Feb. 25, 2013 The America Invents Act: Final Provisions to Become Effective Lessons Learned Obviousness The question of obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations identified in Graham. This includes addressing differences between claimed subject matter and the prior art. Address the specific teachings of the art relied upon rather than rely upon what others have said, e.g., The Examiner found that all limitations of the challenged claims except X were present in AAA, BBB and CCC. Additional reference DDD teaches X. Thus, the challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over prior art references AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD. 33
34 Slide 63 of USPTO Presentation Feb. 25, 2013 The America Invents Act: Final Provisions to Become Effective Lessons Learned Obviousness Parties are to address whether there is a reason to combine art (KSR) and avoid conclusory statements such as: It would have been obvious at the time of the priority date of the challenged patent to incorporate a widget as disclosed by references AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD or EEE into FFF s wadget. See MPEP 2143(A), (C) 34
35 Slide 64 of USPTO Presentation Feb. 25, 2013 The America Invents Act: Final Provisions to Become Effective Lessons Learned Discovery Requests for specific documents with a sufficient showing of relevance are more likely to be granted whereas requests for general classes of documents are typically denied. Mere possibility exists that discovery request will lead to something useful is insufficient to meet necessary interests of justice standard. 35 USC 316(a)(5). Requests must not be overly burdensome given expedited nature of trials. Board will take into account whether party seeking information can reasonably obtain the information sought without need for discovery. 35
36 Thank you. Tom Irving Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC
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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 informationAmerica 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 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 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 informationThese materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of
May 14, 2013 These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These
More informationAmerica 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 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 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 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 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 informationPost-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 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 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 informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious
More 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 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 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 informationFirst-Inventor-to-File
First-Inventor-to-File Duke Patent Law Institute May 14, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational
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 informationPreparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
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 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 informationDISCLAIMER PETITIONS FILED SalishanPatent Law Conference
For 2016 SalishanPatent Law Conference Enhancing The Possibilities Of Success For The Patent Owner In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons From PTAB Denials Of Institution by Deb Herzfeld Copyright Finnegan
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationInequitable Conduct Judicial Developments
Inequitable Conduct Judicial Developments Duke Patent Law Institute May 16, 2013 Presented by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared
More 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 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 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 informationPresenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Today s faculty features:
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Preparing for and Navigating PTAB Appeals Before the Federal Circuit Conducting PTAB Trials With Eye to Appeal, Determining Errors for Appeal, Understanding
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 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 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 informationInter 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 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 informationInter 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 informationTrends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Trends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings
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 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 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 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 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 informationKill Rate of the Patent Death Squad, and the Elusory Right to Amend in Post-Grant Reviews - Part I of II
Kill Rate of the Patent Death Squad, and the Elusory Right to Amend in Post-Grant Reviews - Part I of II By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Patent Review Processing System (PRPS)
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 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 informationIP Litigation in USA Costs, Duration and Enforceability
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP IP Litigation in USA Costs, Duration and Enforceability David W. Hill Partner October 11, 2012 1 U.S. is the most IP-litigious Nation 10 Most Litigious
More informationInter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger
Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent
More informationPaper 14 Tel: Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: July 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CULTEC, INC., Petitioner, v. STORMTECH LLC, Patent
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 informationThe Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The Royal Society of Chemistry IP Law Case Seminar: 2017 in the U.S. Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D. 2017 1 Agenda U.S. Supreme Court news 2017 U.S. Court
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationDesign Patents and IPR: Challenging and Defending Validity at the PTAB
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Design Patents and IPR: Challenging and Defending Validity at the PTAB Navigating Prior Art and Obviousness Analyses, Leveraging IPR for Design
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 informationPTAB Approaches To Accessibility Of Printed Publication
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 PTAB Approaches To Accessibility Of Printed
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 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 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 informationIntellectual Property& Technology Law Journal
Intellectual Property& Technology Law Journal Edited by the Technology and Proprietary Rights Group of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP VOLUME 29 NUMBER 9 SEPTEMBER 2017 The Use of Genetic Evidence to Defend
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 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 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 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 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 informationAmendments 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationFenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice
Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L
More informationWIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 2016 Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Finnegan Europe LLP WIPO Conference on IP Dispute Resolution in Life Sciences 2016 Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D. 1 U.S. Judicial System U.S. Supreme Court Quasi- Judicial Federal Agencies Federal Circuit International
More informationAnthony C Tridico, Ph.D.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Patents Case Law in the U.S. Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D. 18 November, 2015 1 1. Teva v. Sandoz Federal Circuit it must apply a clear error standard when
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 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 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 informationPATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM
More information