According to recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office) data, the Office receives a burdensome number (13%) of information disclosure statements (IDSs) having in excess of 50 total items of information. 89 Fed. Reg....more
In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more
This month we take a deeper dive into petitions practice for cases handled by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). As noted in our previous article, issues of first impression sometimes arise in cases before the CRU where...more
Takeaways: 1. Patent owner statements present both risks and limited opportunities. 2. Waiving the patent owner statement shortens overall reexamination proceeding pendency. Every third party requester ex parte...more
Takeaways: - Patentees must demonstrate “unequivocal intent” to broaden claims in a broadening reissue. - To establish a broadening reissue, a patentee’s actions must align with their words within the two year statutory...more
Takeaways: - Patent owner requested reexaminations are not an admission of claim unpatentability. - Patent owners can and should control the reexamination request narrative. Patent owners must consider the pros and...more
A significant procedure for patent owners, Supplemental Examination, was established in the 2012 America Invents Act when Congress determined there should be a proceeding to turn events that in the past could lead to...more
Sometimes appealing an Examiner’s rejection is the only practical option. If no claims of valuable scope have been allowed or indicated as allowable, and all clarifying claim amendments, supporting evidence and salient...more
During patent prosecution, Examiners often liberally apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in rejecting claims. When responding to these rejections, it is important to remember that there are limits to an...more
Recently, the PTO issued a Notice providing guidance on how the Board treats reissue and reexamination proceedings while an AIA trial on the same patent is co-pending. The guidance comes in response to public comments and...more
On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a petition to review the PTAB’s refusal to deny IPR institution under § 325(d), in a case where the challenged patent had survived several...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the PTAB has discretion regarding whether to institute a covered business method review if the arguments presented in the petition are the same, or substantially the same, as those previously...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination. Fox Factory, Inc....more
This is the second of a three-part series discussing developments around Section 325(d). Part one appeared in our October 2017 newsletter and part three will appear in our December 2017 newsletter....more