Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC

3 Years of Inter Partes Review – By The Numbers

Welcome to Harness Dickey’s Report on Litigation Practice before the United States Patent Office. Created by the America Invents Act, Inter Partes Review proceedings have already changed the face of patent litigation. Lower…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

PTAB’s Ambiguous Language Is Basis For Federal Circuit Vacating PTAB’s Opinion

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit remanded a PTAB decision for just the second time. In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision upholding the validity of…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

No Need to Accentuate the Positive — Eliminate the Negative

In Inphi Corporation v, Netlist, Inc., [2015-1179] (November 13, 3015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the BPAI decision affirming the examiner’s final decision declining to reject claims amended during inter partes reexamination…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Certificate of Correction to Correct Information Not Available When Patent Issued

Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, [2015-1197, 2015-1204, 2015-1259] (November 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit approved the use of a Certificate of Correction to correct information not available at the time the application…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Board Offers New Technique to Solve an Often-Raised IPR Issue

One panel of the PTAB has introduced a technique that may help solve the oft-raised complaint that a reply brief from Petitioner contains new evidence and/or argument not raised in the Petition. In early decisions, when this…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Attorney, Bob Siminski, Travels to China and Tokyo in Fact Finding Trip with IPO

From October 31 through November 6, Harness Dickey attorney Robert (Bob) Siminski traveled to China and Japan on an intellectual property rights fact finding trip. Mr. Siminski traveled as part of a group of delegates…more
| Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Lessons Learned from a Rare CAFC Opinion on an IPR Matter

To date, the Federal Circuit has issued Rule 36 affirmances in over 80% of the cases it has heard. Thus, when a new, substantive opinion is issued by the Court, it is an opportunity to learn. On November 5th, the Federal Circuit…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Farewell the ten sequences rule. The new MPEP disposes of the old §803.04 rule.

The latest MPEP revisions make a variety of changes. Most of the attention has focused on changes to examination procedures for 35 U.S.C. §101, for the obvious reason that this is an aspect of the law that has been in…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Don’t Let Protective Orders Trip Up Your IPR Strategy

The PTAB recently addressed what is a common – but unnecessary – problem created by a protective order issued in a parallel Federal District Court litigation. In B/E Aerospace Industries, LLC v. MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC,…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Federal Circuit Clarity on Key IPR Issues May Be on the Way

We are entering an interesting phase in the development of inter partes review proceedings as more and more of the contours of these proceedings are being heard by the Federal Circuit. To date, the Federal Circuit has made…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Split 5-Judge Panel Allows Issue Joinder as a Way Around the One-Year Filing Deadline

The Board continues to grapple with the issue of joinder where a party seeks to join a petition that would otherwise be time-barred with an earlier-filed petition. In Zhongshan v. Nidec Motor, an expanded 5-judge panel–with two…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

New Filings September 21-27, 2015

On September 22, 20150, Apple, Inc. filed IPR2015-01934 challenging claims 1-9 of United States Patent No. 8,316,177. On September 25, 2015, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. filed IPR2015-01954 challenging claims 1,…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Institution Decisions September 21- 27, 2015

In Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., IPR2015-00914 (PTAB September 24, 2015), the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 28, 33 – 35, 37, 40 – 44, 46, and 49 – 51, of U.S. Patent No. 6,373,188 but not…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Using the Internet to Make Phone Calls is Not Patent Eligible

In Telinit Technologies, LLC Alteva, Inc., [2:14-cv-369] (E.D. Tex. September 21, 2015), Judge Shroeder granted Judgment on the Pleadings that U.S. Patent Number 6,192,123 on a Method and Apparatus for Initiating Telephone Calls…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

The Reason For Bringing a Meritorious Petition for Inter Partes Review is Irrelevant; No Sanctions Against Hedge Fund Front

In Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp., IPR2015-01092, Paper 19 (September 25, 2015), the Board denied the patent owner’s motion for sanctions against Petitioner, who it accused of filing the Petition to…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Showing 1-15 of 529 Results
View per page
Page: of 36

5445 Corporate Dr Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098, United States

  • (248) 641-1600
  • (248) 641-0270

Areas of Practice
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
Other U.S. Locations
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Texas
  • Virginia
Number of Attorneys

100+ Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.