This issue of The PTAB Review begins by providing an analysis of how institution decisions consider declaration testimony submitted by a patent owner. Next, it summarizes proposed rulemaking from the United States Patent and...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins by summarizing a recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision strictly applying the public availability standard for prior art references as a basis for denying institution. Next,...more
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present our 2023 PTAB Year in Review.
We begin with a review of 2023 petition filings and outcomes at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief update about the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) Guidelines for when institution of an America Invents Act (AIA) trial (e.g., inter partes review or post-grant review)...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with two brief updates about the power of the Patent Office Director to review Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. Next, we examine a special circumstance under which a patent...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of changes to America Invents Act (AIA) trials recently proposed in Congress. It then explores a recent Federal Circuit decision rejecting arguments that the Patent...more
This issue of The PTAB Review begins with a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent pronouncement about America Invents Act (AIA) reviews. It then provides an update on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
7/2/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Apple ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Qualcomm ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
In this edition, we examine the effect of Fintiv on PTAB proceedings dealing with patents asserted in so-called “rocket docket” courts. Next, we provide a brief summary of several recent Federal Circuit cases. We conclude by...more
The firm's post-grant practice is pleased to present its 2020 PTAB Year in Review. The publication begins with a review of 2020 petition filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and takes a closer look at the...more
In this edition, we discuss an update on the Arthrex Appointments Clause decision. We examine the continuing demise of same-party joinder and deference to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) precedential decisions, and the...more
On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc., v. Matal, finding that the petitioner has the burden of proving the unpatentability of claims—even...more
Escaping PTAB Review Through Strategic Disclaimer in CBM Proceedings -
A patent is only eligible for covered business method (CBM) review if it: (1) claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other...more
Covered Business Method Patent Review: What Constitutes a Financial Product or Service?
Along with inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR), the America Invents Act (AIA) created a transitional program for...more
Post-Grant Review Proceeding Filings Ramp Up In addition to inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) review proceedings, the America Invents Act (AIA) provides for post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. PGR...more
6/10/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Discovery ,
Estoppel ,
First-to-File ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Rules of Practice ,
USPTO
On July 8, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, split 6-5, denied rehearing of its earlier decision, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015), in which the court upheld the use...more