Motion to Amend

News & Analysis as of

USPTO makes changes to AIA post grant proceedings

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be making a series of rule changes to America Invents Act reviews. Some will be effective immediately, others will be implemented in phases. The rule changes are a direct response to...more

District Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Affirmative Defense of Patent Misuse

The defendants in this patent infringement action filed several motions for leave to amend their answers to include various affirmative defenses, including: (1) the affirmative defense of patent misuse; (2) the affirmative...more

Trademark Review | March 2015

Registration Cancelled Where Services Related to Mark Not Provided - Playdom, Inc. filed a petition to cancel Couture’s mark, arguing that the registration was void because Couture did not use the mark in commerce as of...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2015

Patent Office’s Decision To Institute IPR Not Reviewable - In IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Federal Circuit held it lacks jurisdiction to review the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review....more

PTAB Update -- The Board Grants Its Second Motion to Amend (At Least in Part)

For only the second time, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB" or "Board") granted a motion to amend claims. However, even though these two current motions were only granted-in-part, the fact that some claim amendments...more

And Cats and Dogs Living Together . . .

Well perhaps not the mass hysteria that Dr. Venkman anticipated in Ghostbusters, but the granting of a motion to amend is still an unusual occurrence. However, in Riverbed Technology Inc. v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.,...more

Patentee May Cancel but May Not Substitute Claims when Proposed Amended Claims Are Not Shown To Be Unobvious

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. - Addressing the burden of establishing the patentability of claim amendments in inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and...more

PTAB Update -- Amending Claims in an IPR Proceedings

Just what does it take to amend your claims during an IPR proceeding before the PTAB? Of course, the America Invents Act ("AIA") specifically provides that Patent Owners may file one motion to amend the claims. AIA, §...more

Proposed Claims in IPR Motions to Amend Can Now Be Placed in Appendix

The PTAB recently sent out an email alert, directing practitioners to its order providing guidance on Motions to Amend in Corning Optical Comm. RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00441, Paper 19. The Order stemmed from...more

PTAB Guides Patent Owners on Motions to Amend

The Board recently added an order in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00441, to its list of Representative Decisions on Motion to Amend on the Board’s web site. The decision outlines in...more

PTAB Denies Motion to Amend for Failure to Show Patentability

Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj - Addressing a patent owner’s motion to amend by cancelling claims and substituting claims, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board)...more

PTAB Adopts Broad View of Inherency Doctrine

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd. - Addressing a variety of issues in a recent inter partes review (IPR), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that...more

Handling Dependent Claims in a Motion to Amend

In Google Inc. v. Arendi S.A.R.L., IPR2014-00452, Paper 16 (October 27, 2014), the Board advised the patent owner on addressing dependent claims when an independent claim is amended. ...more

PTAB Update -- Is "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" the Appropriate Standard?

One of the more controversial rules concerning PTAB trials promulgated by the USPTO in the wake of the America Invents Act was the adoption of the "broadest reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") claim construction standard for...more

Know the Patent Specification Before Filing a Motion to Amend

Veeam Software Corp. v. Symantec Corp. - Addressing issues of claim construction and the requirements for a motion to amend, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) ruled that the...more

PTAB Denies Motion to Amend a Motion to Amend; Reason: Delay

Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc. - In response to patent owner’s request to file a motion to amend a motion to amend made approximately one month before oral hearing, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s...more

Movants Face a High Bar to Succeed on Motions to Amend

Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. - In response to a patent owner’s motion to amend its claims in an inter partes review (IPR) petition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent...more

PTAB Designates Two Recent Decisions as Informative

Garmin Int’l, Inc., et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC; Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc. - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) recently designated as “informative” two decisions earlier released...more

Motions to Amend Hard to Come By

Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc. - In a Final Written Decision the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all instituted claims unpatentable and denied patent owner’s motion to amend claims. Zodiac...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

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

Assignor Estoppel and Motion to Amend Claims Both Tough Sells in Inter Partes Review

Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. - Addressing a patent owner’s request to dismiss an inter partes review (IPR) based on assignor estoppel and motion to amend the claims, the U. S. Patent...more

Patent Dispositions for August 22, 2014

Dispositions - In Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. v. Aqua Products, Inc., IPR2013-00159, Paper 71 (August 22, 2012), the Board held that claims 1–9, 13, 14, 16, and 19–21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183 are unpatentable, and...more

Amending Dependent Claims — Listing Doesn’t Count Toward Page Limits

In Micro Motion, Inc. v. Invensys System, Inc., IPR2014-00179, Paper 22, IPR2014-00167, Page 24 (August 11, 2014), the Board informed the patent owner that it must address each proposed substitute independent claim in the...more

A Second Chance on a Motion to Amend

In Microsoft Corporation v. Surfcast, Inc., IPR2013-00292, Paper 77 (June 5, 2014), the PTAB authorized the patent owner to file a corrected motion to correct what it deemed potential ambiguities in the proposed substitute...more

37 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2

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.
×