In 2021, following the Supreme Court’s Arthrex decision, the PTO issued an interim procedure for requesting Director Review. The PTO has now issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) formalizing the Director Review...more
USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued guidance on February 6, 2024 regarding the use of AI in drafting materials submitted to the USPTO’s administrative boards, including the PTAB. Of biggest concern in the guidance is...more
The USPTO issued an advance notice of proposed rules (“ANPRM”) on April 21, 2023 and is requesting comments and feedback from practitioners on proposed, proposed changes at the PTAB. The full ANPRM document is available on...more
The Federal Circuit recently held, in Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., that a disclaimer in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not binding on the USPTO in the same proceeding in which the disclaimer is made....more
In a recent Boardside Chat webinar, a panel made up of PTAB judges and practicing attorneys discussed the use of experts and expert testimony in American Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. The panelists stressed that...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently reversed obviousness rejections based on an Applicant demonstrating commercial success of an infant spoon, in Ex Parte Doug Gonterman and Jessica Lineberry. The PTAB found...more
6/21/2022
/ Commercial Success ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Retail Market
It is no secret that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) often leverages its discretionary denial powers to deny inter parties review (IPR) petitions. The PTAB has discretionarily denied IPR petitions, for example, due...more
In Microsurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, No. PGR2021-00026, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2021), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held that disclaimed claims should be considered for...more
In United States v. Arthrex Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the pre-Arthrex Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) regime of Administrative Patent Judge decisions being insulated from executive...more
6/24/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that certain claims related to genetic inheritance data analysis are patent ineligible. The claims at issue sought to protect applying a...more