Earlier this month, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge issued a general order holding in abeyance all cases remanded in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). As we previously...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712, affirming the constitutionality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) inter...more
4/26/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-969, holding that when the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it must decide the...more
4/26/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
Today in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a fractured Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sitting en banc decided to flip the burden of persuasion onto petitioners in IPR proceedings to show that an amendment is not...more
10/6/2017
/ Appeals ,
Burden of Persuasion ,
Burden of Production ,
Claim Amendments ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
USPTO