In post-grant proceedings since 2018, the PTAB has applied the same claim construction standard as used in district court; a recent Memorandum confirms the PTAB will likewise apply the same standard that district courts use...more
Ten years ago, in an effort to create greater predictability for patent litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the District enacted Local Patent Rules ("LPR") This annotated version of the LPRs is released in honor...more
11/5/2019
/ Claim Construction ,
Discovery ,
Electronically Stored Information ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Local Patent Rules ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
State and Local Government ,
State Pilot Programs
The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more
9/11/2018
/ §315(e) ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 112 ,
USPTO
In an effort to create greater predictability for patent litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the District enacted Local Patent Rules ("LPR") effective as of October 1, 2009. This annotated version of the LPRs...more
There is no doubt that “the potential for estoppel is one of the important considerations for defendants in deciding whether or not to file an [inter partes review (“IPR”)] petition.” Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel...more
...In a recent (and rare) precedential decision, the Board reaffirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus does not change “the USPTO’s long-standing approach to indefiniteness” in the context of pre-issuance...more
9/2/2017
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Indefiniteness ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Section 112 ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO