Ex Partes Reexamination

News & Analysis as of

PTAB Post-Grant Fees Slated To Increase

The USPTO recently announced a proposed new fee schedule in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in search of revenue to recover its projected $3 billion aggregated operating costs for the 2017 fiscal year. If enacted, it...more

Judge Oetken Holds that Amendments Made During Ex Parte Reexamination Are not Effective Until Grant of Reissue Patent

On September 26, 2016, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendant Jay Franco & Sons’ (“Franco”) motion to dismiss, granted plaintiff Infinity Headwear & Apparel’s (“Infinity”) motion for leave to amend to assert...more

Post-Grant Patent Amendment – Canadian and US Options

On the long and sometimes bumpy road of patent prosecution, a Notice of Allowance can be a welcome sign that you are nearly at your destination: a granted patent. But the journey is not over yet. At the time of grant, what if...more

BRI Does Not Apply if Patent Expires Any Time During Reexamination Proceeding

In In Re CSB-System International, Inc., [2015-1832] (August 9, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB erred in applying a broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction, instead of a Phillips claim...more

Federal Circuit Review | May 2016

Federal Circuit Construes Claim Term in a Manner that Rendered Claim Language Superfluous - In SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, Appeal No. 2015-1251, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s...more

Are Ex Parte Reexaminations An Overlooked Method of Challenging Patents?

In the wake of the September 16, 2011, enactment of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), many third-party individuals and organizations began utilizing the newly created post-grant proceedings to challenge the validity of issued...more

It’s a Jungle Out There: A Reexamination Certificate Containing Amended Claims May Be Insufficient to Vacate a Prior Judgment of...

In a case with a unique procedural history the Federal Circuit addressed whether claims amended during an ex parte reexamination proceeding required vacating a prior judgment of invalidity (on patent eligibility grounds) on...more

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In First Appeal From AIA Post-Grant Proceeding: Justices Focus on Practical Consequences of...

On April 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in its first appeal from a decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) in an inter partes review proceeding (“IPR”) under the...more

It’s Not the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, but the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in Light of the Specification

In In re Man Machine Interface Tech. LLC, [2015-1562] (April 19, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the PTAB’s affirmance of the rejection of claims of U.S. Patent No....more

USPTO Seeking Comment on Proposed Amendments to Trademark Rules of Practice

On April 4, 2016 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a Federal Register notice asking for comments to proposed amendments to Trademark Rules of Practice. Specifically, the rules to practice before the Trademark...more

Invalidity Determination Would Not Apply to Reexamination Claims That Did not Exist at Time of Judgment

In Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., [2014-1562] (April 5, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of vacatur, because the denial was within the district court’s discretion and also because the...more

Unenforceability Due to Client Failure to Correct Counsel’s Misrepresentations to PTO - The Ohio Willow Wood Company v. Alps...

In the ongoing saga between two manufacturers of liners for prosthetic limbs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed a finding of inequitable conduct committed by the patent owner while the patent at issue...more

Sometimes the Application of a New Technology is Obvious from the New Technology itself

In In re Cree, [2015-1365] (March 21, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB in an ex parte reexamination that the claims directed to the production of white light through the “down-conversion” of blue...more

IP Litigation Insider - March 2016

Are Ex Parte Reexaminations An Overlooked Method of Challenging Patents? In the wake of the September 16, 2011, enactment of the America Invents Act ("AIA"), many third-party individuals and organizations began utilizing...more

Motion To Stay Pending Reexam Is Denied

Cronos Technologies, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-1538 – LPS; 13-1541-LPS; 13-1544-LPS, March 21, 2016 Stark, C. J. Defendants’ motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination is denied....more

Sensor Maker Cannot Shake Infringement Suit on Summary Judgment

A New Hampshire District Court recently denied defendant sensor makers’ attempt to tilt the case in their favor by denying summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. SignalQuest asserted three patents relating...more

E-Loan, Inc. v. IMX, Inc. (PTAB 2016)

Typical "Business Method Patent" Struck Down by PTAB using CBM Review - On February 16, 2016, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in the Covered Business Method (CBM) patent...more

Defend Trade Secrets Act Clears United States Senate Judiciary Committee

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee with broad bipartisan support. Currently, state law governs civil claims for trade secret misappropriation, generally under a particular state’s...more

Supreme Court Decision In B&B Hardware V. Hargis Industries: Potential Impact on Trademark Prosecution and Enforcement...

In March 2015, the United States Supreme Court delivered an important decision in trademark law. In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352, slip op., 575 U.S.____ ; 135 S.Ct. 1293 (2015) (“B&B Hardware”),...more

PTAB Designates Decision in LG Electronics v. Mondis Tech IPR as Precedential

As a follow-up to our Alert yesterday, the Board also designated their decision in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Tech Ltd., IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 (PTAB September 17, 2015) as precedential, a decision explaining the one-year...more

Inter Partes Review Is Not for Pending Claims - Ford Motor Co. v. Signal IP, Inc.

Addressing the issue of the utility of consolidating an inter partes review (IPR) with an ex parte reexamination proceeding, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied a...more

PTAB Finds Claims to Be Directed to Covered Business Method, but Denies Institution Anyway - E-Loan, Inc. v. IMX, Inc.

Considering whether to institute a covered business method (CBM) review for a patent directed to mortgage loan systems and methods, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) agreed that the patent was a covered...more

PTAB Update -- The Constitutionality Edition - MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

In a decision that likely came as no surprise to anyone, the Federal Circuit upheld the constitutionality of IPR proceedings as provided for by the America Invents Act. With an analysis of two pre-1900 Supreme Court cases...more

PTAB Decisions on Instituting CBM Review Are Based Only on the Petition and Preliminary Response - American Express Company v....

Addressing whether a petitioner seeking a covered business method (CBM) review could file a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) answered in the negative,...more

Preponderance Standard Applies to Ex Parte Re-examinations - Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee

Addressing the presumption of validity in ex parte re-examinations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that the presumption of validity does not apply to patents under reexamination in the U.S....more

49 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×