New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue vs. Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #14: Tom Rozylowicz
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Talking PTAB with Bob Steinberg
Indefiniteness Before the PTAB
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
Director Review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) remains a hot topic in patent law. The Director first established an interim process for Director Review in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United...more
2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more
One of the many changes introduced into U.S. patent law by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were provisions for post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR). There have been thousands of these proceedings...more
Two bills recently introduced in Congress could significantly affect the current patent litigation landscape. The bipartisan bills are titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 and the Promoting and Respecting...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
On July 6th and 7th, the USPTO made good on its promise to not wait for a confirmed director to begin Arthrex Director reviews, issuing its first denials of review requests. The full press release is below:...more
Disappointed with the final decision in your inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR)? Under a new interim procedure, you may now seek review by the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Office is...more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court handed down a highly-anticipated decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., finding that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”)—the judges who sit on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)...more
On January 6, 2021, US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Andrei Iancu, Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld and Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick issued a memorandum to the members of the Patent...more
It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) challenging patents issued before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). ...more
There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern...more
While much of the focus of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act relates to economic stimulus, the Act also granted temporary authorization to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark...more
After the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019), held that federal agencies are not “persons” eligible to challenge a patent at the PTAB, the government was...more
On January 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the following cases...more
After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 13th annual list of top patent stories. For 2019, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more
Nothing Personal: Supreme Court Says Feds Lack Post-Grant Standing - With post-grant trials passing their seventh anniversary, the courts are still working out the kinks. The U.S. Supreme Court has already provided...more
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that government entities could not be considered “persons” entitled to challenge patents owned by others before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)....more
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a series of decisions that address the rights and immunities that the federal and state government have when they become party to a post-grant proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
In Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 17-1594, Justice SOTOMAYOR wrote for the majority to overturn a Federal Circuit decision that the U.S. Postal Service had standing to petition for covered business method review. The...more
The Supreme Court ruled in Return Mail that a federal agency is not a "person" who may challenge an issued patent in inter partes review, post-grant review, or CBM review under the AIA. In its 6–3 decision in Return Mail,...more