As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), there are dozens of considerations to bear in mind – from strategically approaching depositions and maximizing expert testimony, to drafting the final say in your...more
In our earlier blogs, we previously discussed when to file an amendment, when not to file an amendment, and the procedural guidelines for filing amendments pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). Below are four tips for improving...more
Under U.S. patent law, “No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). And petitioners only need to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aqua Products Inc., v. Matal materially changes the burden of proof associated with the patentability of amended claims during an inter partes...more
For just the third time ever, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) recently sided with a Patent Owner in an inter partes review (“IPR”) to find that evidence of secondary considerations of...more
As a patent owner involved in patent litigation, you must consider numerous factors when negotiating a settlement agreement. An important contemplation is timing, because finalizing a settlement agreement at the wrong...more
The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision...more
10/3/2016
/ Assignor Estoppel ,
CAFC ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Versata