News & Analysis as of

Administrative Procedure Final Written Decisions

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Interprets SAS as Applying to Claims and Grounds

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu—which did away with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) partial-institution practice—parties and the Patent Office alike have been trying to...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

SAS Institute: One Month In

Foley & Lardner LLP on

We are now a little over a month since the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu, where the Court held that “[w]hen the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

SAS Institute: Two Weeks In

Foley & Lardner LLP on

As explained in a prior client alert, two weeks ago the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu holding that “[w]hen the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of...more

Knobbe Martens

USPTO Issues Guidance on Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings

Knobbe Martens on

On April 26, 2018, the USPTO issued a one-page guidance document on the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, on AIA trial proceedings....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Supreme Court Strikes Down PTAB Partial Institution Practice: If PTAB Institutes IPR, It Must Address All Challenged Claims in Any...

The Supreme Court has ruled by a narrow majority of 5-4 that the Patent Office’s regulation allowing for partial institution decisions in inter partes review is foreclosed by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). SAS Institute Inc....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB: Summaries of Key 2017 Decisions

In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more

Jones Day

Be Advised: Settlement Does Not Necessarily End An IPR Or PGR

Jones Day on

The AIA expressly anticipates and permits a patent owner and a petitioner to reach a settlement during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding. For IPRs, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) is entitled “Settlement” and provides, in pertinent...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

SAS Institute v. Matal, Supreme Court No. 16-969

On November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Oil States Energy Svcs, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 where the Court will consider the constitutionality of IPR proceedings. The Oil States case...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB Extends Deadline to Decide IPR Motion to Amend in view of Aqua Products

Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB extended the deadline for issuing its IPR final written decision on a motion to amend by up to six months to provide additional time to consider the impact of the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc Aqua Products...more

Jones Day

PTAB Terminates IPR Just Under the Statutory Wire

Jones Day on

The patent statute requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to issue a final written decision within one year of instituting an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The recent case of Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. Westerngeo...more

Jones Day

SAS Files Opening Brief in Supreme Court Opposing “Partial” Final Written Decisions

Jones Day on

On July 20, SAS Institute, Inc., represented by Jones Day, filed its opening brief in the Supreme Court. SAS’s brief amplifies the arguments, initially set forth in its petition for certiorari and reply brief in support of...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide