Motion to Amend

News & Analysis as of

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

PTAB Grants First Motion for Leave to Amend in Inter Partes Review

Representatives from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, led by Janet Gongola, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, spent the better part of last month traversing the U.S....more

FCA Relator Petitions Supreme Court Seeking Resolution of Circuit Split Regarding Applicability of Rule 15(a) to Post-Judgment...

Dr. Helen Ge, the relator in United States ex rel. Ge v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd., recently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the First Circuit’s decision that...more

A Primer On Claim Amendments in Post-Grant Review

Bloomberg Inc. et al. v. Markets-Alert Pty Ltd. - In the final written decision of a covered business method (CBM) review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sided with the petitioner, canceling all claims under...more

Judge Sweet Denies Motion To Further Amend Complaint - Ferring B.V. et al. v. Allergan, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 1:12-cv-02650-RWS (Dkt. 88) - In a dispute dating from 2003 concerning the ownership of patent involving desmopressin, a synthetic hormone used to treat excessive urine production, Judge Sweet denied...more

PTAB Invalidates Patent in First IPR Trial of a Design Patent

On April 21, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a final written decision in the first inter partes review proceeding involving a design patent (IPR2013-00072). In...more

Encore Explanation of the Requirements of a Motion to Amend

In Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc., IPR2013-00333, Paper 38 (April 16, 2014), the Board gave an encore of the myriad of requirements to file a successful motion to amend, something no patentee has been able to...more

31 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2