An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims...more
2/11/2019
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Section 112
The PTAB may institute IPR proceedings only on the basis of certain prior art that is potentially invalidating under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute IPR on any other unpatentability grounds,...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether...more
8/2/2017
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Section 112
As we have previously discussed on this blog, when considering an issue of patentability such as definiteness under section 112, the PTAB and a district court may properly reach opposite conclusions. In Tinnus Enterprises LLC...more