In This Presentation:
- USPTO POST-GRANT PROCEEDINGS: LESSONS LEARNED AFTER 2 YEARS
- Rationales for Denial of Petition
- Rationales for Claims Surviving Final Decision
- Considerations for Multi-Forum Proceedings
- IPRs and Concurrent Litigation: Issues to Consider
- RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES
- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. 134 S.Ct. 981 (Jan. 13, 2014)
- Before Octane Fitness–The Rules from Brooks Furniture
- Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. 134 S. Ct. 1744 (June 30, 2014)
- OCTANE & HIGHMARK - FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
- Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1871 (2014) (June 2, 2014)
- Indefiniteness
- Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
- Patentable Subject Matter -Biotech
- Myriad Genetics
- Bowman V. Monsanto, 133 S. Ct. 1761(May 13, 2013)
- Excerpt from Indefiniteness:
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (June 2, 2014)
•From 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (2011):
–“The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
•§112(b) used by USPTO during prosecution to reject claims as unpatentable, and by courts to invalidate an issued patent...
Please see full publication below for more information.