In a decision issued today, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether an Examiner can rely on the filing date of a provisional application under pre-AIA 102(e) to support a rejection based on a later-filed and...more
Kilpatrick partners John Alemanni and Justin Krieger recently presented a CLE addressing “Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal).”...more
Today, the Director of the U.S. Patent Office designated the final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) precedential as to section II.E.3. In that section, the Board...more
Parties in inter partes review proceedings often dispute whether a reply to a patent owner response is truly responsive or instead an attempt to introduce new arguments that are not reasonably tied to those set out in the...more
Yesterday, in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case No. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023), the Federal Circuit held that for estoppel to apply under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a patent holder must prove, by a preponderance...more
In a precedential opinion issued this week, the Federal Circuit held that Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) does not constitute “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) and thus...more
Today, the USPTO issued a memorandum providing guidance on the use of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). The guidance limits the use of AAPA, stating “admissions by the applicant in the specification of the challenged...more
Petitioners are best served by pursuing a limited number of grounds based on the best prior art they can find. This is due in large measure to (1) the limited space Petitioner has to make its arguments, and (2) estoppel based...more
On Wednesday, September 7, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,670,358 and 7,776,072 were not obvious, in part because certain cited prior art was not “disseminated or otherwise made available...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") recently granted a motion to amend. A successful motion to amend is rare; only six have been granted to date. The case is Shinn Fu Co. of America Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger...more
The non-invasive prenatal testing field has been an active area for patent challenges. Ariosa has challenged patents held by competitors Sequenom and Verinata. The latter is patent owner in two IPR proceedings challenging...more