In This Presentation:

- USPTO POST-GRANT PROCEEDINGS: LESSONS LEARNED AFTER 2 YEARS

- Rationales for Denial of Petition

- Rationales for Claims Surviving Final Decision

- Considerations for Multi-Forum Proceedings

- IPRs and Concurrent Litigation: Issues to Consider

- RECENT SUPREME COURT CASES

- Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. 134 S.Ct. 981 (Jan. 13, 2014)

- Before Octane Fitness–The Rules from Brooks Furniture

- Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. 134 S. Ct. 1744 (June 30, 2014)

- OCTANE & HIGHMARK - FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

- Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1871 (2014) (June 2, 2014)

- Indefiniteness

- Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments

- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

- Patentable Subject Matter -Biotech

- Myriad Genetics

- Bowman V. Monsanto, 133 S. Ct. 1761(May 13, 2013)

- Excerpt from Indefiniteness:

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120 (June 2, 2014)

•From 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (2011):

–“The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”

•§112(b) used by USPTO during prosecution to reject claims as unpatentable, and by courts to invalidate an issued patent...