Administrative Agency Intellectual Property

Read need-to-know updates, commentary, and analysis on Administrative Agency issues written by leading professionals.
News & Analysis as of

Lawyers Fighting Over Domain Names Never Looks Good

Law360 reported that two competing DUI defense lawyers are fighting over the domain name www.dontblow.com. Well-known DUI attorney Tyler Flood is the plaintiff. He has been using the domain name www.DoNotBlow.com for almost...more

IPR Proceedings Filed Eight Months Apart Is Too Long to Permit Joinder

In the Macronix International Co., Ltd. et al. v. Spansion LLC, the PTAB denied Petitioner's motion for joinder under Section 315(c). On November 8, 2013, the Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent...more

PTAB's Guidelines for Foreign Language Depositions

In the Ariosa Diagnostics v. ISIS Innovation Limited inter partes review, the PTAB set for the guidelines for taking depositions in a foreign language as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(c). In addition to the requirement of...more

Make That First Bite A Big One

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Marital Deduction Trust, IPR2014-00695, Paper 18 (September 25, 2014), the Board denied Medtronic’s motion to join the IPR with a prior IPR 2014-00100, also involving U.S. Patent No. 5,593,417. The...more

PTAB to Apple: No Third or Fourth Bite at the Apple

In inter partes proceeding Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute et al., IPR2014-00320, Petitioner Apple sought a second request for rehearing, before an expanded panel of the PTAB, on the Board's decision not to...more

Inter Partes Review – Parties Favor Settlement Over Board Decisions

Now that we have a growing body of statistics on the Inter Partes Review proceedings created by the America Invents Act, it is interesting to see how the proceedings are being resolved. With the significant attention given to...more

PGR Report -- The Attack of 35 U.S.C. § 112

Last week, on September 2, 2014, Accord Healthcare, Inc. ("Accord") filed what appears to be the second-ever Post-Grant Review ("PGR") (see Petition). This PGR was for U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 ("the '219 Patent"), which is...more

Supreme Court Will Decide Level of Deference, If Any, Given to TTAB Decisions Concerning Likelihood of Confusion

On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision in the case B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis, Inc. (2013). B&B Hardware owns a registered mark for SEALTIGHT for self-sealing nuts and...more

PTAB Threatens Sanctions for Unauthorized E-mails

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLC - Addressing a patent owner’s unauthorized e-mail arguing for additional discovery and the petitioner’s likewise unauthorized responsive e-mail, an...more

No “Correct” Pronunciation for Trademarks that Are Unrecognized Words

StonCor Group, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc. - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in affirming a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) ruling finding no likelihood of confusion between the...more

Despite Lack of Familiarity with Specific Technology-at-Issue, Industry Expert Not Excluded

The Board continued its reluctance to exclude evidence in inter partes review proceedings in Primera Technology, Inc., v. Automatic Manufacturing Systems, Inc., Final Written Decision, IPR2013-00196 by denying a motion to...more

First Application of Alice Corp. Decision to Covered Business Method Patent Review

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Segin Software, LLC - In determining whether a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review should be instituted, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) referred to the Supreme Court’s...more

Patentee Owner Must Show a Nexus Between Alleged Commercial Success and the Claimed Technology

Vibrant Media, Inc. v. General Electric Co. - Addressing the issue of whether secondary considerations for non-obviousness showing commercial success of a system allegedly infringing a patent could rebut prima facie...more

The First Derivation Proceeding: Possession Not Enough: Need to Show Prior Conception of Claim Subject Matter

Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd v. Adidas AG - In denying institution for the first derivation petition considered on the merits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) found that the petition was fatally flawed in...more

The Importance of the One-Year AIA Timeline

Rackspace US, Inc. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC - Addressing the one-year time frame for completing inter partes review (IPR) in the context of a stay request, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial...more

PTAB Dismisses Argument That Priority Date is a § 112 Issue Not Reviewable in an IPR

In a decision instituting inter partes review, the PTAB rejected a patent owner’s argument that the priority date of the patent is not reviewable in an IPR because it’s an issue under 35 U.S.C. § 112. ...more

Another Requirement to a Successful Motion to Amend Claims

It is getting hard to keep track of all the hoops and hurdles that need to be navigated in bringing a successful motion to amend in an inter partes review proceeding. Each new decision seemingly raises the bar further. The...more

No Right to Cross-Examine a Declarant Not Under the Proponent’s Control

In Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. de C.V. v.Honeywell International, Inc., IPR2013-00576, Paper 36 (September 5, 2014), the Board denied patent owner’s request for additional discovery – the deposition of Dr. Takashi Shibanuma,...more

Garmin Factors Continue to Keep Additional Discovery Out of Reach

In Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol, Limited, IPR2013-00309, Paper (September 4, 2014), petitioner sought (1) detailed sales records of the products covered and not-covered by the...more

The Heavy Burden of a Motion to Amend

LaRose Indus., LLC v. Capriola Corp. - Addressing issues of claim construction and the requirements of a motion to amend, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) ordered the claims at issue were unpatentable and...more

Kappos v. Hyatt Applies Broadly to Raising New Issues in District Court Actions

Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp. - Addressing the scope of permissible new issues and evidence admissible in 35 U.S.C. § 146 district court proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a...more

Characterization as “Essential Element” Amounts to a Disavowal of Scope

X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. International Trade Commission - Addressing the impact of an alleged disclaimer made in a patent on which asserted patents relied for priority, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

FDA Requests Comments and Issues Notice of Public Hearing Related to Implementation of GDUFA

On August 19, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued in the Federal Register a request for comment and notice of public hearing on a variety of topics relating to its implementation of the Generic Drug User...more

Revenue-Driven Licensing Activities Fail to Satisfy Domestic Industry Requirement for ITC Action

The ALJ terminated the ITC investigation upon granting respondent's motion for summary judgment for lack of domestic industry, finding that the complainant's (a licensing entity) patent-related activities were solely...more

ITC ALJ Breaks New Ground, Further Heightening the DI Requirement for NPEs in § 337 Cases

According to a recent initial determination by an Administrative Law Judge of the International Trade Commission, a purely revenue-driven NPE cannot prove the existence of a domestic industry by relying solely on the...more

1,015 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 41

Follow Administrative Agency Updates on: