Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court
|
|
- Dina Lambert
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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
2 Overview Background: IPR by the numbers Standing/Privity Admission pro hac vice/disqualification of counsel Discovery Inter Partes Review 2
3 Post-Grant Filings: the numbers Of the 234 petitions for IPR or CBM, 192 have identified pending or concluded litigation involving the challenged patent (81%). Bruce H. Stoner, Jr., Esq., PTAB Review Proceedings: Lessons Learned and Other Observations, May 2, 2013, 2013 AIPLA Spring Meeting. Inter Partes Review 3
4 Filings By Technology Center Subject Matter Type General Chemical (1700) Biotech & Pharma (1600) Computer Architecture, Software & Electronic Commerce (2100, 2400, 2600, part 3600) General Electrical (2800) Design, General Mechanical (2900, part 3600, 3700) CHEM Totals ELEC MECH & DESIGNS TOTALS Source: Bruce H. Stoner, Jr., Esq., PTAB Review Proceedings: Lessons Learned and Other Observations, May 2, 2013, 2013 AIPLA Spring Meeting. *Includes 213 IPR filings and 21 Covered Business Method (CBM) filings. Inter Partes Review 4
5 Standing to Petition for IPR Under 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1), a party may not petition for inter partes review if that party has already filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent: (a) Infringer's civil action. (1) Inter partes review barred by civil action. An inter partes review may not be instituted if, before the date on which the petition for such a review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent. However, a party s counterclaim challenging validity does not trigger 315(a)(1) s prohibition: (3) Treatment of counterclaim. A counterclaim challenging the validity of a claim of a patent does not constitute a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent for purposes of this subsection. Inter Partes Review 5
6 Standing to Petition for IPR: Ariosa In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR , Isis challenged Ariosa s standing under 315(a)(1) based on the following facts: In December of 2011, Ariosa filed an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement against Isis Innovation s exclusive licensee, Sequenom, of the challenged patent. Paper No. 18, p. 3. Sequenom counterclaimed for infringement. Id. at 4. In its reply to Sequenom s counterclaim, Ariosa raised invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112 and general principles of patent law as an affirmative defense. Id. Inter Partes Review 6
7 Standing to Petition for IPR: Ariosa Isis challenged Ariosa s standing under 315(a)(1), arguing that: A key directive of the IPR statute is that a party initiating patent-validity challenge must choose a single forum. Id. at 5. That Ariosa s patent-validity challenge is in the form of an affirmative defense and does not appear in its complaint is of no moment. Section 315 s broad bar is not premised on the validity challenge being presented in the complaint; the statute does not mention complaint. Instead, the statutory language is directed to a petitioner-initiated civil action in other words the entire civil lawsuit that challenged patent validity. Id. at 6-7. If a petitioner s affirmative invalidity defense raised in response to a patent owner s counterclaim of infringement does not bar IPR, a petitioner desiring to initiate multiple proceedings or harass a patent owner could simply follow the roadmap Ariosa seeks to establish in this case. A counterclaim of infringement is compulsory when a declaration of non-infringement is asserted. If it is not made, it is waived. Id. at 7. Inter Partes Review 7
8 Standing to Petition for IPR: Ariosa In considering Isis challenge, PTAB considered two issues: (1) [W]hether filing a Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement in District Court bars Ariosa from later filing a petition for Inter Partes Review under 35 U.S.C. 315(a) ; and (2) [W]hether express mention of a counterclaim of invalidity in 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(3) mandates interpreting the statute such that raising an affirmative defense of invalidity in response to a compulsory counterclaim of infringement deprives Ariosa of standing to file for inter partes review. Paper No. 20, p. 5 (PTAB February 12, 2013). Inter Partes Review 8
9 Standing to Petition for IPR: Ariosa Does Ariosa s declaratory judgment action for non-infringement preclude IPR? PTAB: No. Relying on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2 [t]here is one form of action the civil action and 3 [a] civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with court, the PTAB rejected Isis s contentions, concluding that when the statute refers to filing a civil action, it refers to filing a complaint with court to commence the civil action. Paper No. 20, p. 5. Inter Partes Review 9
10 Standing to Petition for IPR: Ariosa Does 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(3) s counterclaim exception deprive Ariosa of standing to file for IPR? PTAB: No. there is a fundamental difference between an affirmative defense of invalidity and a counterclaim of invalidity... invalidity is tied to the claim of infringement, whereas a counterclaim of invalidity is independent from the claim of infringement, which survives a finding of noninfringement. Section 315(a)(3) makes clear that if a party is faced with a claim of infringement, it can bring the independent claim of invalidity as a counterclaim and still available itself of inter partes review. Paper No. 20, pp Section 315(a) clearly defines which civil action, when filed, bar a party from filing inter partes review civil actions challenging the validity of a patent. A civil action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement is not a civil action challenging the validity of a patent. Id. at 7. Section 315(a) was amended to allow petitioner to filed an inter partes review, and still have their choice of venue by allowing the petitioner to file a declaratory judgment action that same day. Id. at 8. Inter Partes Review 10
11 Standing to Petition for IPR: Ariosa On Isis request for rehearing, the PTAB affirmed its earlier ruling: The language of the statute is clear. To be barred, a party must have filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim. The statute does not read or raising a challenge to the validity of a claim of the patent during the course of a civil action. Here, Ariosa filed a civil action challenging infringement of a claim of the patent. As recognized by Isis however, after having filed its challenge to infringement, Ariosa raised an affirmative defense in response to an action taken by Isis exclusive licensee. Institution of inter partes review on these facts, is not precluded by 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1). Paper No. 22, p. 3 (PTAB March 12, 2013). Inter Partes Review 11
12 Privity in Petitioning for IPR: Mentor Graphics March 2006: Mentor sued Emulation and Verification Engineering S.A. and EVE-USA Inc. (together EVE ) for infringement of patent assigned to Mentor. Later in 2006: the case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. September 26, 2012: Synopsys submitted to the USPTO an IPR petition on certain claims of the 376 patent. October 4, 2012: Synopsys acquired EVE as a wholly-owned subsidiary. February 22, 2013: PTAB instituted IPR. April 29, 2013: Mentor Graphics sued Acting Under Secretary Teresa Stanek Rea (C.A. No. 1:13-cv-518 (E.D. Va.)) for exceeding authority under 35 U.S.C. 315(b). Inter Partes Review 12
13 Privity in Petitioning for IPR: Mentor Graphics Section 315(b) provides that An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the... privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.... Mentor Graphics contends that privy of petitioner includes petitioner s predecessor in interest and the privy relationship is determined at the time PTAB decides whether to institute IPR, not at the time the petition is filed or the district court complaint is served. Paper No. 16, p. 15. The USPTO contends that the privy relationship must exist at time the complaint for infringement is served or (possibly) when the petition for IPR was filed. Id. at 16. Inter Partes Review 13
14 IPR: Admission Pro Hac Vice Parties often want litigation counsel to represent them in IPR proceedings for consistency and efficiency reasons. What if litigation counsel is not admitted to practice before the USPTO? Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Michael Arnouse, IPR , Paper No. 6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2012): An expanded PTAB panel issued an order authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission pursuant to 37 CFR and set forth guidelines for timing and content of motion for pro hac vice admission. Inter Partes Review 14
15 IPR: Admission Pro Hac Vice Timing of Motion: Must be filed within 21 days after service of the IPR petition. Paper No. 7, p. 2. Opposition must be filed within 7 days. Id. at pp Reply motions are not permitted. Id. at p. 3. Inter Partes Review 15
16 IPR: Admission Pro Hac Vice Content of Motion: Statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice Id. Motion must be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of counsel seeking to appear attesting to: Membership in good standing to the Bar of at least one state; No suspensions or disbarments before any court or administrative body; No application for admission before any court or administrative body ever denied; No sanctions imposed by any court of administrative body; Counsel seeking admission has read and will comply with USPTO Patent Trial Practice Guide and PTAB s Rule of Practice for Trials; Counsel is subject to the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility; All other proceedings before the USPTO for which counsel had applied to appear pro hac vice within the last three years; and Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the IPR. Id. at pp Inter Partes Review 16
17 IPR: Admission Pro Hac Vice The PTAB has considered several motions for admission pro hac vice and generally grants them: In Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd., CBM , Paper No. 13, (PTAB November 26, 2012), the PTAB found good cause for granting Markets-Alert s litigation counsel s motion: Counsel attested to requirements set forth in Motorola Mobility; Counsel represents Markets-Alert in six district court actions involving challenged patent; Counsel has been practicing in the patent litigation field for over thirty years; and Counsel has been lead counsel on several hundred patent cases, litigating many of them through trial and appeal. Paper No. 13, pp Counsel seeking admission pro hac vice is usually admitted for good cause, which is often satisfied due to the fact that counsel is involved in related district court litigation. The PTAB has denied only one motion for admission pro hac vice, in SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. CBM Inter Partes Review 17
18 IPR: Admission Pro Hac Vice SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. CBM : During related litigation, Versata s lead litigation counsel had access to highly confidential and proprietary information about petitioner SAP and its products, use of which was governed by the protective order entered in that litigation. Paper No. 16, p. 5. SAP argued that the attorney s participation in the related litigation and the IPR would put him in a position to affect the scope of the claim of the challenged patent, all the while knowing how SAP s products operate beyond what is publicly known. Id. at pp In an Order provided to PTAB by SAP (but not Versata), the district court found that Versata breached the plain language of the Protective Order through a pattern of violations involving several members of its litigation team and discovery vendor. Paper No. 21, pp The PTAB was troubled by the fact that Versata did not address the violation in its motion for admission pro hac vice of its lead litigation counsel. Id. at p. 4. Versata, as the party moving for pro hac vice admission, bears the burden of showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding. Based upon the facts presented, the Board concludes that Versata has failed to meet its burden. Id. at pp Inter Partes Review 18
19 IPR: Disqualification of Litigation Counsel? In ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, IPR , PTAB denied authorization to file motion to disqualify counsel.paper No. 9 (PTAB April 16, 2013). Petitioner ScentAir sought permission from the PTAB to file a motion to disqualify Prolitec s lead counsel and backup counsel. A related district court litigation involves the same patent and parties, and the protective order (1) bars litigation counsel from using confidential information obtained in the litigation outside of that litigation and (2) a prosecution bar that prohibits litigation counsel from drafting or amending claims while prosecuting an application before the UPSTO. Id. at p. 2. Inter Partes Review 19
20 IPR: Disqualification of Litigation Counsel? Grounds for denial: The PTAB found it key that while the protective order specifically mentioned prosecution activities, it did not mention litigation or trials before the PTAB. Id. at 4. An IPR is not original examination, continued examination, or reexamination of the involved patent. Rather, it is a trial, adjudicatory in nature and constituting litigation. Id. Counsel are subject to sanctions in E.D. Wis. for any violation of the protective order. Id. ScentAir can seek relief from E.D. Wis. if it wants an interpretation of the protective order on this issue or if it wants expansion of the protective order to expressly prevent Prolitec s counsels participation in the IPR. Id. Inter Partes Review 20
21 IPR: Discovery Discovery in a complex patent litigation case can range from $5 million to $ 10 million, but only reaches about 10% of those costs in a complex IPR. Gerald Murphy, Jr., Esq., Should You Use A Patent Practitioner or Litigator for IPR?, Law360, March 25, Although an IPR s limited subject matter is a factor, IPR s limited discovery is an significant reason for these lower costs. Discovery in IPR proceedings is limited to the following: Documents cited in papers, cross-examination of declaration testimony, and information inconsistent with positions advanced during the proceeding. The parties may agree mutually to provide additional discovery or either party may file an authorized motion seeking additional discovery. 37 CFR 42.51(b)(1); 37 CFR 42.51(b)(2)). Inter Partes Review 21
22 IPR: Discovery In the first IPR filed at the USPTO, the PTAB explained the limited nature of IPR discovery, noting that it is significantly different from the scope of discovery generally available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and restricts additional discovery to particular limited situations, such as minor discovery that the PTO finds to be routinely useful, or to discovery that is justified by the special circumstances of the case. Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR , Paper No. 26, p. 5 (PTAB March 5, 2013). Inter Partes Review 22
23 IPR: Discovery Five factors to consider when deciding whether additional discovery is in the interest of justice : 1. More than a possibility and mere allegation 2. Litigation positions and underlying basis 3. Ability to generate equivalent information by other means 4. Easily understandable instructions 5. Requests not overly burdensome to answer Id. at 6-7. Inter Partes Review 23
24 IPR: Secondary Considerations Discovery How does request for discovery concerning secondary considerations of non-obviousness play out? Need evidence or sufficient reasoning beyond mere speculation that petitioner copied the patented invention. Knowledge of the patent is not enough. petitioner tried but failed to develop a device with the features of the claimed invention which, even if true, would be insufficient to establish failure of others, i.e. widespread efforts of skilled workers having knowledge of the prior art had failed to find a solution to the problem. Paper No. 26, at p. 9. petitioner achieved commercial success because of inventive feature recited in claims, accounting for the presence of other desirable features implemented on products with alleged commercial success. Petitioner recognized that there had been a long-felt but unresolved need with regard to the claimed invention. Inter Partes Review 24
25 IPR: Secondary Considerations Discovery How does request for discovery concerning secondary considerations of non-obviousness play out? Ability to generate equivalent information but other means can be a real barrier to discovery: a party seeking discovery must look to its own resources before requesting information from another party. Cuozzo has not adequately explained why it needs Garmin s views to establish what Cuozzo believes had been a long-felt but unresolved need with regard to speed limit indicators. Cuozzo can rely on its own analysis of the state of the art or on the opinions of independent analysis. Id. at p. 14. With regard to the price differential between Garmin products with and without the speed limit alert feature. Cuozzo can conduct its own market survey and make its own comparison. Id. Inter Partes Review 25
26 IPR: Litigation-like Discovery Discovery should not be used to force a party to reveal prematurely its theory of the case: [A]sking for the other party s litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions is not necessary in the interest of justice. Id. at p. 13. [T]he Board has established rules for the presentation of arguments and evidence and.. there is a proper time and place for each party to make its presentation... a party may not attempt to alter the Board s trial procedures under the pretext of discovery. Id. [i]f and when Garmin present affidavit or declaration testimony to support any position it maintains, Cuozzo has an opportunity to crossexamine the affiant... Garmin is not obligated to keep Cuozzo informed of its positions on substantive issues before Garmin is ready to present them in this review. Id. Inter Partes Review 26
27 IPR: Litigation-like Discovery Discovery requests should not be overly burdensome to answer. Requests should be sensible and responsibly tailored according to a genuine need. The basis for this factor is the one-year statutory deadline for IPR. Id. at 14. Burden includes (1) financial burden; (2) burden on human resources; and (3) burden on meeting the IPR schedule. Id. Based on the following facts, the PTAB held that Cuozzo s discovery requests were overly burdensome: Garmin had millions of pages of engineering documents that potentially [had] to be searched. Garmin estimated that it would require approximately labor hours and cost $22,500-37,5000 dollars to respond to Cuozzo s document requests. Garmin estimated that responding to the interrogatories would require approximately labor hours and cost $15,000-$22,500. Document request seeking documents and things you considered in preparing your responses to patent owner s interrogatories is unduly broad. Inter Partes Review 27
28 IPR: Secondary Considerations Discovery In Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR , , Paper No. 32 (PTAB March 8, 2013), a PTAB panel denied the patent owner s motion for commercial success discovery: The interest of justice standard for granting additional discovery and its legislative history require that showing of relevance be made by the party seeking additional discovery before the request is granted... While we agree that a conclusive showing of nexus is not necessary at this stage, some showing of relevance is necessary. This is particularly so here, where [the patented invention] is itself not a product but one feature of a complex software product. Inter Partes Review 28
29 Questions? Thank you Barbara Fiacco Foley Hoag LLP Inter Partes Review 29
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 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 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 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 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 informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More 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 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 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 informationBACK TO THE FUTURE Discovery at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
BACK TO THE FUTURE Discovery at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Oliver R. Ashe, Jr. ASHE, P.C. 11440 Isaac Newton Sq. North Suite 210 Reston, VA 20190 Tel.: 703-467-9001 Fax: 703-467-9002 www.ashepc.com
More informationAre the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable?
April 2014 Are the Board s Institution Decisions on 315 Eligibility for Inter Partes Review Appealable? The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has before it the first appeal from the denial 1
More 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 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 informationPatent Trial and Appeal Board Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) *1 ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS. PETITIONER, v. ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED PATENT OWNER.
Page 1 2013 WL 2181162 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd.) Attorney for Petitioner: Greg H. Gardella Scott A. McKeown Oblon Spivak ggardella@oblon.com smckeown@oblon.com Attorney for Patent Owner: Eldora L. Ellison
More informationNavigating the Limitations on Discovery in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal Volume XI December 3, 2015
Navigating the Limitations on Discovery in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal Volume XI December 3, 2015 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD REBECCA M. MCNEILL AMELIA FEULNER BAUR,
More informationPaper No Entered: June 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 24 571.272.7822 Entered: June 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. CATR
More informationReal Parties and Privies in PTAB Trials. By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1
Real Parties and Privies in PTAB Trials By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 INTRODUCTION The America Invents Act (AIA) requires Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions to identify the real
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 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 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 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 informationPaper 9 (IPR ) Entered: September 1, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 (IPR2016-01111) 571-272-7822 Paper 9 (IPR2016-01112) Entered: September 1, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES,
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 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 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 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 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 informationHow Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice. Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice
How Post Grant Challenges Have Evolved from Proposed Rules to Practice Prepared by W. Karl Renner Principal & Co Chair of Post Grant Practice Fish & Richardson May 8, 2013 Agenda I. Very Brief Orientation
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SQUARE, INC., Petitioner, REM HOLDINGS 3, LLC, Patent Owner.
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 23 571-272-7822 Entered: September 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SQUARE, INC., Petitioner, v. REM HOLDINGS 3, LLC, Patent
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1145 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. SAP AMERICA, INC., AND SAP AG, Respondents, and UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
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 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 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 informationLessons from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit s Recent Jurisprudence on Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review
Lessons from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit s Recent Jurisprudence on Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review Sharon A. Israel Partner sisrael@mayerbrown.com Vera A. Nackovic Partner vnackovic@mayerbrown.com
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 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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION, Petitioner. FELLOWES, INC., Patent Owner.
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 16 Date Entered: April 18, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION, Petitioner. v. FELLOWES,
More informationPaper Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARRIS GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
More informationPaper Date: July 24, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 571-272-7822 Date: July 24, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARRIS GROUP, INC. Petitioner, v. C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,
1 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IVERA MEDICAL CORPORATION; and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, vs. HOSPIRA, INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. Case No.:1-cv-1-H-RBB ORDER: (1)
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 7, ISSUE 24 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, (June 16, 2015) (en banc) (precedential) (11-1) Patent No. 6,155,840
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 informationThe Impact of IPRs on Parallel Litigation Before the District Courts and ITC
The Impact of IPRs on Parallel Litigation Before the District Courts and ITC Presented by: Andrew Sommer April 30, 2015 Today s elunch Presenter Andrew R. Sommer Litigation Washington, D.C. asommer@winston.com
More informationThe New PTAB: Best Practices
The New PTAB: Best Practices Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association Washington in the West Conference January 29, 2013 Los Angeles, California Jeffrey B. Robertson Administrative Patent Judge
More informationCoordinating Litigation
Presented: 2013 Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute December 12-13, 2013 Four Seasons Hotel Palo Alto, California Coordinating Litigation Jared Bobrow David L. McCombs Isaac Peterson Jared
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 informationPTAB At 5: Part 3 Fed. Circ. Statistics
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 At 5: Part 3 Fed. Circ. Statistics By
More informationPaper 11 Tel: Entered: September 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Petitioner,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner PARKERVISION, INC. Patent Owner Case 1PR2014-00947 U.S. Patent No.
More informationPaper 11 Tel: Entered: October 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RPX CORPORATION Petitioner v. APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET
More informationPresented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney. AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016
Presented by Karl Fink, Nikki Little, and Tim Maloney AIPLA Corporate Practice Committee Breakfast Meeting May 18, 2016 2016 Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP Overview Introduction to Proceedings Challenger
More informationPaper Entered: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 54 571.272.7822 Entered: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD POLYGROUP LIMITED (MCO), Petitioner, v. WILLIS ELECTRIC COMPANY,
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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case:-mc-00-RS Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION PERSONAL AUDIO LLC, Plaintiff, v. TOGI ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and others, Defendants.
More informationCase 1:13-cv GBL-IDD Document 10-2 Filed 05/16/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 312
Case 1:13-cv-00328-GBL-IDD Document 10-2 Filed 05/16/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 312 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
More informationPaper 23, IPR ; Paper 23, IPR Entered: February 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 25, IPR2014-00946; 571.272.7822 Paper 23, IPR2014-00947; Paper 23, IPR2014-00948 Entered: February 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 571-272-7822 Entered: October 20, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. TRANSDATA, INC.,
More informationCBM Eligibility and Reviewability
CBM Eligibility and Reviewability Karl Renner John Phillips Andrew Patrick Webinar Series March 12, 2014 Agenda #fishwebinar @FishPostGrant I. Overview of Webinar Series II. Statistics III. Covered Business
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING
More 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 informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC, v. Plaintiff, MILLENIAL MEDIA, INC., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION infringement of the asserted patents against
More informationThe New Post-AIA World
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent
More informationCurrent Developments in Inter Partes Review
Current Developments in Inter Partes Review Speakers: Peter Gergely, Merchant & Gould Current Developments Ryan Fletcher, Ph.D., Merchant & Gould Hot Topics Chris Davis, Merchant & Gould Trends and Statistics
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
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 informationFederal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings
Federal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings October 7, 2015 Attorney Advertising Speakers Greg Lantier Partner Intellectual Property Litigation Emily R. Whelan Partner Intellectual
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 informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-76 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- J. CARL COOPER,
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 informationPaper Date: September 25, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Date: September 25, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TARGET CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DESTINATION MATERNITY
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 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H Defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk NEURO CARDIAC
More informationPaper 17 Tel: Entered: October 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571 272 7822 Entered: October 31, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC. and ZIMMER, INC., Petitioner,
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 informationPatent Practice in View Of PTAB AIA Proceedings
Patent Practice in View Of PTAB AIA Proceedings FOR: AIPLA Spring Meeting, Minneapolis International Track I, Thurs. May 19th By: Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC http://www.neifeld.com 1 Resources Paper
More informationPaper 24 Tel: Date: June 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24 Tel: 571-272-7822 Date: June 23, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNISONE
More informationWebinar Series 2017 PTAB Year in Review
Webinar Series 2017 PTAB Year in Review Presented by: George Beck Andrew Cheslock Steve Maebius January 18, 2018 Housekeeping Questions can be entered via the Q&A Widget open on the left-hand side of your
More informationMOTIONS TO AMEND IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS A QUICK REFERENCE
MOTIONS TO AMEND IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PROCEEDINGS A QUICK REFERENCE IIPI/BBNA AIA POST-GRANT PATENT PRACTICE CONFERENCE February 19-20, 2014 Christopher L. McKee, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Statutory Basis:
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 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 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 informationNorthern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Northern Ill.'s New Local Patent Rules Law360,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Intellectual Ventures I, LLC; Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-10860-PBS Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationCase 2:05-cv CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.
Case 2:05-cv-00467-CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN INDIA BREWING, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 05-C-0467 MILLER BREWING CO., Defendant.
More informationPaper Entered: March 13, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 13, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PROPPANT EXPRESS INVESTMENTS, LLC, and PROPPANT EXPRESS
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 informationPaper: Entered: January 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 71 571-272-7822 Entered: January 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NESTLÉ HEALTHCARE NUTRITION, INC., Petitioner, v. STEUBEN
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 informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationEmerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings
Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings March 28, 2017 Attorney Advertising Overview Trends for TC1600/Orange Book Patents Legal Developments Scope of Estoppel Joinder Motions
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 informationRe: Response to Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 80 Fed. Reg (August 20, 2015)
The Honorable Michelle K. Lee Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 600 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA
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 informationLife Science Patent Cases High Court May Review: Part 1
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 Life Science Patent Cases High Court May
More informationPost-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues
Post-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues Grant Shackelford Sughrue Mion, PLLC 2018 1 Agenda Background: PTAB's partial institution practice SAS Decision Application of
More 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 information