Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
It has been argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) cannot engage in rulemaking through decisions made by its administrative patent judges (APJs), even if those decisions are made precedential, as APJs...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
When post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act began, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") treated motions to amend in those proceedings like most other motions: the movant, here the patentee, bore...more
On remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted patent owner’s motion to amend on the basis that the totality of the record did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the...more
As first discussed with the 50+ participants at the inaugural Global IP Strategy Conference held at our firm’s offices on Friday March 9, 2018, the Federal Circuit’s October en banc decision in Aqua Products Inc. v. Matal...more
Where Parties Raise an Actual Dispute Regarding Claim Scope, the Court Must Resolve It In Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2016-1104, 2016-1105, the Federal Circuit held that where parties raise an actual...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and HUGHES. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In inter partes review, the patent challenger bears the burden of proving that proposed amended...more
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Aqua Products, a deeply fractured court provides a glimpse into the perspectives that some of the judges have on post-grant practice at the...more
Motions to Amend: Burden to Prove Amended Claims are Unpatentable Rests with Petitioner - On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, regarding the...more
In an en banc decision, the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended during inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings are or are not...more
On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, placing the burden of persuasion on the petitioner to prove the invalidity of amended claims in post-grant...more
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Amerigen Pharm. Ltd. v. Shire LLC, IPR2015-02009, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. March 31, 2017) granting a rare motion to amend. The motion canceled all instituted claims and amended a...more
In a rare grant of a petition for rehearing en banc, the court decided that an appeal “warrants en banc consideration” of who bears what burden when amending in an IPR. In re: Aqua Products, No. 15-1177, slip op. at 2 (Fed....more
Applying its own precedent, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed that the burden remains on the patent owner to demonstrate the patentability of substitute claims over the art of record in an inter partes...more
The PTAB Does Not Have to Consider New Arguments Raised in IPR Reply Briefs - In Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1693, the Federal Circuit upheld a PTAB decision finding of...more
The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more
In another unsurprising turn, the Federal Circuit affirmed the motion-to-amend practice adopted by the PTAB in IPR proceedings. The majority opinion in Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc., authored by Chief Judge...more