In earlier blogs, we discussed when to amend and when not to amend claims in an inter partes review (“IPR”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). Below are guidelines on the procedural aspects of filing a motion to amend...more
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the PTAB will often uphold the validity of dependent claims despite finding the independent claim invalid. Dependent claims recite additional limitations that must be separately...more
Discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, governed by 37 CFR § 42.51, are more limited in scope and timing compared to cases in district court. There are three types of discovery at the Patent Trial...more
5/28/2021
/ Additional Discovery ,
America Invents Act ,
Discovery ,
Garmin Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO
The expert declaration provides a unique opportunity for Patent Owners to bolster their case during the discovery period of an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding. We previously detailed how to effectively use an expert...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently grappled with the admission into evidence of expert deposition testimony that was presumably harmful to the petitioner in an inter partes...more
Recently, in Sanofi-Aventis v. Mylan, 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW, Judge Stanley Chesler of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied a motion by defendant Mylan for summary judgment of invalidity of asserted...more
10/11/2019
/ Appeals ,
B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence