MAY/JUNE 2014 DEVOTED TO INT ELLECTUAL P RO PERTY LIT IGATION & ENFORCEMENT. Edited by Gregory J. Battersby and Charles W. Grimes.
|
|
- Edgar Murphy
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 MAY/JUNE 2014 VOLUME 20 NUMBER 3 DEVOTED TO INT ELLECTUAL P RO PERTY LIT IGATION & ENFORCEMENT Edited by Gregory J. Battersby and Charles W. Grimes Litigator
2 A Guide to Using Video-Recorded Depositions in Inter Partes Review Trials Stan Schlitter Stan Schlitter is a partner in the Intellectual Property group of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. He focuses his practice on patent infringement litigation, the licensing of intellectual property and intellectual property counseling. He is a member of the trial bar of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and has been admitted pro hac vice in numerous other district courts. Mr. Schlitter s experience includes matters involving semiconductor devices, electronics, mechanical devices, and business methods, among other technical areas. He is admitted to practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office and has been counsel in several inter partes review trials under the America Invents Act. Video recorded depositions can be used in inter partes review (IPR) trials ( i.e., the phase of the proceeding subsequent to a petition for IPR being granted) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act. IPR trials are by their nature streamlined. To meet the one-year deadline for the PTAB to issue a final written decision, 1 the PTAB exerts tight control over the trials and the issues that may be addressed. Thus, decisions granting petitions for IPR specify which of the grounds for invalidity asserted in the petition will be addressed in the trial. 2 Page limitations on briefs and motions, 3 the limitations on demonstrative exhibits that may be used at final oral hearing, and the limited time allocated for final oral hearings demand that petitioners and patent owners make the most of the opportunities available to them in IPR trials to make their case to the PTAB. Typically, both the petitioner and the patent owner rely on expert declarations to support their respective positions in IPR trials, and depositions are taken of those experts. Cross-examination of declaration testimony by deposition is considered routine discovery for which the PTAB s authorization or the adverse party s consent is unnecessary. 4 Provided the PTAB authorizes their submission in a particular case, video clips from depositions can be used to support arguments in briefs and later as demonstrative exhibits at the final oral hearing. As discussed below, the rules governing IPR trials contemplate video-recorded depositions and impose requirements for taking and submitting them in support of a brief or using them as demonstrative exhibits at final oral hearing. This article provides guidance for taking, submitting, and using video-recorded depositions in IPR trials. Reasons to Video-Record a Deposition As in any litigation, a video-recorded deposition in an IPR trial has several advantages over a printed transcript alone. Video-recorded testimony can better capture interest, convey more information, and make a clearer and stronger impression than printed testimony alone. Importantly, a witness demeanor can be observed in a video clip, shedding light on his or her credibility. For example, long pauses before answering questions are unnoticeable from a printed transcript, but stand out starkly on a video. Long pauses may give the appearance that the witness is hiding something or being evasive. Similarly, a witness look of surprise may indicate a lack of knowledge; a nervous voice, a change in tone of voice, or a facial expression might betray a witness lack of confidence in an answer or a lack of candor. Thus, a video may reveal a great deal more information about the witness demeanor and credibility than the printed transcript alone. From the perspective of a party taking a deposition, when a witness deposition is being video recorded, tactics such as a witness long pauses and evasiveness that hinder the efficient conduct of the deposition are discouraged because they will be evident to anyone watching the video-recording of the deposition later. Similarly, video recording a deposition may serve to restrain obstructionist conduct of some opposing counsel in defending the deposition and may tend to make it proceed more smoothly. By capturing the viewer s attention, a video clip of a deposition transcript also may be useful to emphasize an admission or other key testimony. Additionally, some testimony might be more easily understood by viewing the witness testifying than by reading the printed MAY/JUNE 2014 IP Litigator 1
3 transcript. For example, when a witness points to some portion of or marks on a deposition exhibit, having the witness hold up the exhibit for the video camera and point to a portion being referred to can aid in understanding the testimony. Rules for Video Recording Depositions in IPR Trials The rules governing IPR trials specifically provide for video recording depositions. Under 37 C.F.R (a), [p]arties may agree to video-recorded [deposition] testimony, but may not submit such testimony without prior authorization of the Board. 5 Thus, when the parties agree to video-record a deposition, it is unnecessary to seek the PTAB s authorization to do so. However, videorecorded testimony may not be submitted to the PTAB without the PTAB s prior authorization. To obtain the PTAB s authorization to submit video-recorded deposition testimony, a party generally must demonstrate a specific reason or need for viewing by the PTAB. 6 In Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., the PTAB allowed 30 minutes of excerpts from the video deposition of each of two witnesses to be submitted. 7 The PTAB apparently found sufficient need for submission of 30-minute video clips of excerpts just because the depositions had extended over five days and four days, respectively. The timing of making a request to the PTAB for authorization to submit video-recorded deposition testimony is somewhat critical. In general, authorization should not be sought until after the deposition has been completed so that the specific reasons or need for the PTAB to view video excerpts can be articulated to the PTAB with reference to the video-recorded and printed transcript. The PTAB held in one case that a request to submit video-recorded testimony was premature where the deposition had not yet been taken and no specific reason or need was shown. 8 The PTAB has suggested that prior authorization to submit video-recorded testimony could be sought by a patent owner at the time of filing the patent owner response or reply to petitioner s opposition to a motion to amend. 9 A petitioner could seek authorization to submit video-recorded testimony at the time of filing its opposition to a motion to amend. Possibly a request to submit video excerpts also could be made in connection with a motion for observation on cross-examination to draw the PTAB s attention to relevant cross-e xamination testimony of a reply witness. As discussed below in regard to final oral hearing, video excerpts that were not submitted and made a part of the record during the briefing phase of the IPR trial will be considered new evidence, which may not be used at final oral hearing. 10 Therefore, the decision to potentially use a video clip at final oral hearing must be made early enough to make the clip part of the record during the briefing phase of the IPR trial. Some Mechanics of Submitting Video Exhibits to the PTAB Video exhibits must be submitted in proper MPEG format. 11 Only PDF and MPEG format files may be uploaded in PRPS. 12 Noting that no video exhibit may exceed 25 MB, the PTAB in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V. authorized the filing of video excerpts as multiple exhibits (each not exceeding 25 MB), with the excerpts totaling no more than 30 minutes for each witness. 13 The video excerpts should be synchronized with the transcript of the testimony so that the synchronized text appears along with the video content, as the PTAB requested in Corning Inc. Showing the text next to the video clip can heighten the impact of the testimony and make it easier to follow and cross-reference to the brief in which it is cited. Video-Recorded Depositions as Exhibits to Briefs Video clips of excerpts from video recorded depositions can be used to support arguments in a brief, provided the PTAB s authorization to submit the video clips is obtained. Given the streamlined nature of IPR trials, the page limitations on briefs, and the inability to introduce new evidence or present new arguments at the final oral hearing, consideration should be given to using video excerpts of depositions during the briefing phase of an IPR trial. Video clips can provide persuasive support for arguments in a brief, and in appropriate cases they also can be used as a demonstrative exhibit at final oral hearing. In seeking the PTAB s authorization to submit video excerpts from a deposition, a party should point out the additional information conveyed by the video excerpts that is not apparent from the printed transcript. A typical reason for submitting video excerpts is to allow the PTAB to evaluate the witness demeanor in assessing credibility. Another reason might be to enable the PTAB to clearly understand testimony involving the witness marking on or pointing to something in an exhibit during his or her deposition. As noted above, the PTAB indicated in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V. that a sufficient need for the 2 IP Litigator MAY/JUNE 2014
4 submission of excerpts might be that the deposition extended over several days. 14 But because excerpts of the printed transcript of a lengthy deposition could be submitted, the duration of a deposition may not by itself suffice in every case to gain the PTAB s authorization to submit video excerpts. When a video clip of deposition excerpts is submitted in support of a brief, the video excerpts should be discussed in the brief and their significance explained. Besides maximizing the impact of the video excerpts on the argument a party is making in the brief, this can help ensure that the video clip will not be new evidence if later the party desires to use it as a demonstrative exhibit at final oral hearing. Video-Recorded Deposition Excerpts as Demonstratives at the Final Oral Hearing No new evidence or arguments may be presented at final oral hearing. 15 At final oral hearing, the parties may rely only on evidence previously submitted in the proceeding and present only arguments made in the papers previously submitted. Video clips of deposition excerpts not submitted prior to final oral hearing constitute new evidence. 16 Therefore, to be used at final oral hearing, video clips must have been previously made part of the record in connection with a paper that was filed. 17 The PTAB provided guidance regarding demonstrative exhibits at final oral hearing in CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC. 18 Further guidance also is provided in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. 19 This guidance will be discussed below. A party may not at final oral hearing rely on evidence that was not submitted in the petition, patent owner response, a motion, an opposition, or a reply. 20 According to the PTAB, the final oral hearing is not an opportunity to add anything to a party s case. 21 Whatever a party desires to present should have already been presented in the party s petition, response, opposition, motion, reply, declarations, observations on cross-examination, or other exhibits presented at an appropriate time at trial. 22 As the PTAB has noted, unlike trials in district courts, a trial before the PTAB is conducted on paper. 23 The final oral hearing is an oral hearing at which the parties are limited to evidence and arguments they already submitted on paper, with an opportunity for the PTAB to ask questions. The parties may use demonstrative exhibits at the final oral hearing, subject to the foregoing limitations. For evidence or an argument not to be considered new for purposes of final oral hearing, it must have previously been developed, discussed, or explained in a party s papers. 24 Testimony may not be developed, discussed, explained, or summarized, for the first time, in the form of a demonstrative exhibit at final oral hearing. 25 The PTAB does not even permit a party to bring a new twist or angle to a party s case, including a different characterization of the evidence or different inferences to be drawn from the evidence. 26 The PTAB stated in Microstrategy, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc. that either party may, at final oral hearing, use any page from the record as a demonstrative exhibit, so long as the content of the page has been specifically discussed in an appropriate paper in the proceeding. 27 Note that merely including a page in the record in the proceeding is insufficient for the PTAB to permit that page to be used as a demonstrative exhibit at final oral hearing; the page must have been discussed specifically in an appropriate paper. The PTAB is likely to apply the same rationale to video clips from depositions. Generally, establishing the requisite specific need or reason for the PTAB to view video excerpts from a deposition will require focusing on particular excerpts rather than the entire deposition. Submitting lengthy video clips of deposition excerpts to the PTAB with a paper during the trial without discussing the significance of all of the excerpts in the video clips in the paper in support of which they are being submitted probably would not be sufficient to enable a party to use the video clips at final oral hearing. Therefore, any video-recorded deposition excerpts a party may want to use as a demonstrative exhibit at final oral hearing should be specifically developed, discussed, explained, or summarized in a paper submitted during the trial. 28 Also, given the time constraints of final oral hearings (many have been limited to an hour for the petitioner and patent owner each), showing more than a short video clip generally would be impractical. Video clips shown at final oral hearing should be short clips that are likely to have a significant impact, such as by detracting from an adverse expert s credibility or strongly emphasizing an important point. To minimize the chance of video excerpts being deemed new evidence or argument, precisely the video excerpts potentially to be used at the final oral hearing should be used as an exhibit to an appropriate paper and the arguments and inferences to be drawn from those excerpts developed in that paper. The burden of showing that a demonstrative exhibit is not new evidence and does not present a new argument is on the party presenting it. 29 It is possible that the PTAB might consider a short video clip taken from a longer video clip submitted in support of a brief to be new evidence if the specific portion of the longer video clip included in the short video clip was not specifically discussed in the brief. While as a practical matter only a short video clip could be used at the final oral hearing, more liberal MAY/JUNE 2014 IP Litigator 3
5 use of video clips would be possible as exhibits to the papers submitted in the course of the trial. For example, as noted above, in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V. the PTAB permitted submission of 30 minutes of video excerpts from each of two witness depositions. In general, there likely will be many fewer opportunities to use video clips as demonstratives at oral hearings than as exhibits to briefs. Because evidence at final oral hearing must have been presented and explained in a paper in order to be used at the oral hearing, the PTAB already will have seen the video clip to be shown as a demonstrative exhibit prior to the oral hearing. Nevertheless, viewing it again will reinforce the point being made by the video clip. It also may invite the PTAB to ask questions about it, adding further emphasis to the video clip. Not every case will produce a video clip significant enough to merit being shown at final oral hearing. However, attorneys should be attentive to opportunities to use a particularly significant video clip as a demonstrative at final oral hearing. When an appropriate video clip exists, it could capture the PTAB s attention and make a significant impact. Suggestions for Using Videotaped Depositions The video excerpts to be used in support of a paper in an IPR trial should be selected to give a fair depiction of the deposition. Improper editing of video clips can give a misimpression by taking statements out of context or giving undue significance to expressions, mannerisms or brief excerpts of the testimony. If your adversary uses video clips from a deposition, you should review them carefully to ensure that they fairly represent the witness and the testimony. You should expect an adversary to give the same scrutiny to your video clips. Conclusion Given the streamlined nature of IPR trials and the intent to provide a faster and less expensive forum to challenge the validity of patents under Sections 102 and 103, there are special constraints on the presentation of evidence and arguments in IPR trials. Consideration should be given to video recording the depositions of expert witnesses on their declarations. In some instances, video excerpts of a witness deposition testimony, together with the corresponding portions of the printed transcript, can be more easily understood and can convey more information relevant to credibility than the printed transcript alone. If a sufficient specific reason or need for the PTAB to view video excerpts can be shown to obtain the PTAB s authorization, they may be submitted in support of briefs during the IPR trial. Provided that a video clip of deposition excerpts has been discussed specifically in an appropriate paper in the proceeding, a party may be able to use that video clip as a demonstrative exhibit at final oral hearing. Selective use of video clips in appropriate cases may help clarify and emphasize important expert witness testimony. This can provide for more persuasive and effective briefing and argument at final oral hearing. 1. Under 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11), an IPR is statutorily required to be complete within one year of institution, except that the time may be extended up to six months for good cause. 2. CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, No. IPR , Paper 118 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2013). 3. See 37 C.F.R (2013) C.F.R (b)(1)(ii) (2013); see also CBS Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, No. IPR , Paper 85 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2013), at C.F.R (2013) ( Taking testimony. (a) Form. Uncompelled direct testimony must be submitted in the form of an affidavit. All other testimony, including testimony compelled under 35 U.S.C. 24, must be in the form of a deposition transcript. Parties may agree to video-recorded testimony, but may not submit such testimony without prior authorization of the Board. In addition, the Board may authorize. ) The foregoing is the only reference in the Code of Federal Regulations to video recording depositions. The Trial Practice Guide makes no express reference to video-recording depositions. See also, Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., No. IPR , Paper 65 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2013); Atrium Med. Corp. v. Davol Inc., No. IPR , Paper 29 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2013). 6. Atrium Med. Corp. at Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B.V., No. IPR , Paper 41 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2013). 8. Atrium Med. Corp. at Nichia Corp. at CBS Interactive Inc., No. IPR , Paper 118 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2013). 11. See USPTO, Patent Review Processing System (PRPS), Technical Issues, Item 1, Corning Inc. at 2; see also McLinton Energy Grp., LLC v. Magnum Oil Tools Int l Ltd, No. IPR , Paper 7 (Apr. 11, 2013) (rejecting petitioner s submission of a DVD disk as a non-compliant format and directing resubmission as an MPEG file). 13. Corning Inc. at 2. A seven hour deposition takes up about 4 GB; 25 MB corresponds to roughly one to two pages. 14. Corning Inc. at See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg , (Aug. 14, 2012); CBS Interactive Inc., No. IPR , Paper 118 at 2; Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., No. IPR , Paper 42 at 1-2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2013). 16. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., No. IPR , Paper 65 at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2013). 18. CBS Interactive Inc., No. IPR , Paper 118 at Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., No. IPR , Paper 62 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2013). Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg , at II.M. ( No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the oral argument. ) 21. CBS Interactive Inc., No. IPR , Paper 118 at Id. at Id. at Id. 25. Id. 26. Id. at Microstrategy, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. IPR , Paper 40 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013). 28. See id. at Id. 4 IP Litigator MAY/JUNE 2014
6 Copyright 2014 CCH Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted from IP Litigator, May/June 2014, Volume 20, Number 3, pages 16 19, with permission from Aspen Publishers, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York, NY, ,
MAY/JUNE 2016 DEVOTED TO INT ELLECTUAL P RO PERTY LIT IGATION & ENFORCEMENT. Edited by Gregory J. Battersby and Charles W. Grimes.
MAY/JUNE 2016 VOLUME 22 NUMBER 3 DEVOTED TO INT ELLECTUAL P RO PERTY LIT IGATION & ENFORCEMENT Edited by Gregory J. Battersby and Charles W. Grimes Litigator The IPR Trial A Play in Three Acts Charles
More informationCOMMENTARY. Exclusion of Evidence Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Mechanics of Filing a Motion to Exclude
October 2014 COMMENTARY Exclusion of Evidence Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Post-issue challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board ) 1 provide an accelerated forum to challenge
More informationPaper Entered: September 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: September 10, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD., BROAD OCEAN
More 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 informationPost-Grant for Practitioners. Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony. June 8, Steve Schaefer Principal
June 8, 2016 Post-Grant for Practitioners Evidentiary Trends at the PTAB Part II: "Paper" Witness Testimony Steve Schaefer Principal John Adkisson Principal Thomas Rozylowicz Principal Agenda #FishWebinar
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 informationA Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations During Post-Merits Briefing
A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review Strategic Considerations During Post-Merits Briefing Webinar Guidelines Participants are in listen-only mode Submit questions via the Q&A box on the bottom right
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 informationPaper Date: April 13, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 51 571-272-7822 Date: April 13, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG CHEM, LTD., Petitioner, v. CELGARD, LLC, Patent Owner.
More informationPaper Entered: October 7, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 101 571-272-7822 Entered: October 7, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CBS INTERACTIVE INC., THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, G4
More informationPaper Entered: September 18, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: September 18, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LUV N CARE, LTD., Petitioner v. MICHAEL L. MCGINLEY,
More informationNEW US PATENT CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PROMOTE GLOBAL HARMONISATION, BUT CASUALTIES RUN HIGH
NEW US PATENT CHALLENGE PROCEDURES PROMOTE GLOBAL HARMONISATION, BUT CASUALTIES RUN HIGH REPRINTED FROM: CORPORATE DISPUTES MAGAZINE APR-JUN 2016 ISSUE corporate CDdisputes Visit the website to request
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More 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 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 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 informationFactors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016
Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016 MARY R. HENNINGER, PHD 404.891.1400 mary.henninger@mcneillbaur.com REBECCA M. MCNEILL 617.489.0002 rebecca.mcneill@mcneillbaur.com
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 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 informationPaper: Entered: October 28, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 45 571-272-7822 Entered: October 28, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (US) HOLDINGS, INC. and SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY
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 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 informationPaper Entered: August 30, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 571-272-7822 Entered: August 30, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP., and ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS
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 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 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 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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Patent Owner. CASE NO. IPR2016-00040 PATENT OWNER S OPPOSITION
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins *
David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins * Since the June grant of certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, 1 the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might find inter partes review (IPR), an adversarial
More 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 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 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 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 informationPaper Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 148 571-272-7822 Entered: January 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD VENTEX CO., LTD., Petitioner, v. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR
More informationPaper: 27 Tel: Entered: November, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 27 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November, 30 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVER INFORMATION INC. AND IPEVO, INC., Petitioner,
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 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 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 informationPaper Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 16 571-272-7822 Entered: September 20, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
More 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 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 informationTips For Litigating Design-Arounds At ITC And Customs
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Tips For Litigating Design-Arounds At ITC And Customs
More informationHow To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes Review
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 How To ID Real Parties-In-Interest In Inter Partes
More informationPaper Entered: December 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 571.272.7822 Entered: December 18, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS, INC., Petitioner, v. BRITAX CHILD
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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS Petitioner. ILLUMINA, INC.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS Petitioner v. ILLUMINA, INC. Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 7,955,794 Trial No. 2014-01093 PETITIONER
More informationPaper Entered: February 6, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34 571-272-7822 Entered: February 6, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZTE (USA) INC., Petitioner, v. FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MEDTRONIC, INC., v. MARK A. BARRY Patent Owner
Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper 48 Date Entered: May 13, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MEDTRONIC, INC., v. MARK A. BARRY Patent Owner Case
More informationSPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB
SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme
More informationPTAB Proposed Rule Changes: What s In & What s Out?
Charting the Course of the PTAB Web Conference Series PTAB Proposed Rule Changes: What s In & What s Out? August 27, 2015 Speakers Steve Maebius Partner, Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF
More informationcoggins Mailed: July 10, 2013
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 coggins Mailed: July 10, 2013 Cancellation No. 92055228 Citadel Federal Credit Union v.
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 informationPaper Date Entered: November 21, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Date Entered: November 21, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Petitioner v. MPHJ TECHNOLOGY
More informationPaper Date: January 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Date: January 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD B/E AEROSPACE, INC., Petitioner, v. MAG AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES,
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 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 19 (IPR ) Entered: May 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 21 (IPR2016-00281) 571-272-7822 Paper 19 (IPR2016-00282) Entered: May 23, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
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 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 informationPaper Entered: September 16, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 571-272-7822 Entered: September 16, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
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 informationPaper 42 Entered: May 7, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Paper 42 Trials@uspto.gov Entered: May 7, 2013 572-272-7822 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ILLUMINA, INC. Petitioner, v. THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
More informationIPR , Paper No IPR , Paper No. 17 IPR , Paper No. 18 Entered: June 30, 2017
Trials@uspto.gov IPR2016-01720, Paper No. 17 571.272.7822 IPR2016-01721, Paper No. 17 IPR2016-01722, Paper No. 18 Entered: June 30, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
More informationAugust 13, Jeff Costakos Vice Chair, IP Litigation Practice Partner, Patent Office Trials Practice
August 13, 2015 Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800,Chicago, IL 60654
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 informationPaper 24 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 9, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC. Petitioner v. EVERYMD.COM LLC Patent
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More 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 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 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 informationPaper Entered: February 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 91 571-272-7822 Entered: February 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BENNETT REGULATOR
More informationCOMMENTARY. Motions to Disqualify Opposing Counsel in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings
February 2016 COMMENTARY Motions to Disqualify Opposing Counsel in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings Motions to disqualify opposing counsel often raise difficult issues of legal ethics. Behind
More informationLessons Learned from Two Years of Post-Grant Proceedings
June 2015 Lessons Learned from Two Years of Post-Grant Proceedings Among many other changes it enacted, the America Invents Act provided for three new types of post-grant proceedings before the Patent
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 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 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 informationPaper No Entered: March 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 7 571-272-7822 Entered: March 20, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION and SOFTLAYER
More informationPaper Entered: March 31, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19 571-272-7822 Entered: March 31, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD INLINE PACKAGING, LLC, Petitioner, v. GRAPHIC PACKAGING
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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Petitioner, ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Patent Owner. CASE NO. IPR2016-00040 U.S. Patent No. 7,484,264
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. BUNGIE, INC., Petitioner, ACCELERATION BAY LLC., Patent Owner.
Filed on behalf of: Bungie, Inc. By: Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com) Andrew S. Brown (asbrown@wsgr.com) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 Paper No.
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 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 informationA Rebalancing Act: Early Patent Litigation Strategies in Light of Recent Federal Circuit Cases ACC Litigation Committee Meeting
ACC Litigation Committee Meeting Demarron Berkley Patent Litigation Counsel Jim Knox Vice President, Intellectual Property Matt Hult Senior Litigation Patent Counsel Mackenzie Martin Partner Dallas July
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 informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 22nd ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 2-3, 2017 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland
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 informationNo OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents.
No. 16-712 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. GREENE S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationGUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION
GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION DIVISION Legal Services Table of Contents About the Guide to Proceedings Before the Immigration Division ii, iii Notes and references..iv Chapter 1... POWERS
More informationPaper Date Entered: July 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Date Entered: July 24, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC., and T-MOBILE USA INC.,
More 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 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 informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner
Paper 29 Filed: April 25, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner PATENT OWNER CHANBOND, LLC
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 informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More information2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp. AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO
2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO Board Practice Tips & Pitfalls Jonathan Hudis Quarles & Brady LLP (Moderator) George C. Pologeorgis Administrative Trademark
More 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 informationMonitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct
Monitoring Practitioner Compliance With Disciplinary Rules and Inequitable Conduct Intellectual Property Owners Association September 11, 2007, New York, New York By Harry I. Moatz Director of Enrollment
More information