Proceso constituyente en Colombia Parte II
On March 26, 2025, Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart issued a memorandum (the Workload Memorandum) to all Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and...more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more
On Friday afternoon, February 28, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a brief “bulletin” rescinding a memorandum issued by the former Director Kathy Vidal (“Vidal Memo”) providing guidance on...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Following up on a November 4th oral argument (accessible here) that focused on the Arthrex Appointments Clause issue, the Federal Circuit has requested additional briefing from Polaris, Kingston, and the U.S. regarding the...more
An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims...more
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
On November 16, 2017, the USPTO issued new procedures (“Standard Operating Procedure 9”) for governing cases remanded from the Federal Circuit. These procedures are applicable to all decisions remanded from the Federal...more
Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether...more