No 102(e) Prior Art in a CBMR

more+
less-

In Trulia, Inc, v. Zillow, Inc., CBM2013-00056, Paper 19 (April 10, 2014), it was called to the Board’s attention that the prior art relied upon in the petition was 102(e) which is not proper prior art for a covered business method review.  The petitioner pointed out that each reference had a corresponding publication that was 102(b) prior art, but the Board found that it could not change the grounds on which the trial was instituted, and intead suggested that the petitioner file an second petiton, replacing the 102(e) art with the 102(b) art, and move to join the proceedings.  While the time for joinder passed the day of the Board’s order, the Board said it would waive the joinder deadline if both parties were amenable.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×