The Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concerning the application of 37 CFR § 42.73(d)(3)(i)’s estoppel provisions in invalidating amended patent claims....more
Before Bryson, Lourie, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Summary: Estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) only applies to obtaining new...more
As a trademark applicant, encountering a prior registration that obstructs your path to registration is never a pleasant experience (nor for your attorneys who have to inform you about it). The frustration only intensifies...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
Takeaways: -A requester can have a voice in ex parte reexamination prosecution. - Requesters should strategically structure their request documents to hedge against potential patent owner amendment and argument. The...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
For the first time in nearly 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v....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
The recent resurgence in ex parte reexamination demonstrates the importance of this post-grant review vehicle. It has become particularly important for patent challengers who may be estopped from requesting inter partes...more
A review of 2023 reveals it was an active and impactful year in shaping the policy and practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In fact, all three...more
This Year in Review synthesizes key events and decisions from 2023 into a digestible guide that we hope will serve as a helpful reference for those who practice before, or adjacent to, the PTAB. As in the past, many of our...more
This case addresses how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) interacts with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Background - Cellect sued Samsung Electronics, Co. for infringement of four patents. Subsequently, Samsung...more
Executive Summary - The patent application examination requirement is statutory based rather than a Constitutional requirement. For instance, from 1793 to 1836, the U.S. Patent System operated on a registration system...more
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the interplay between obvious-type double patenting (ODP) and patent term adjustments (PTA) granted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). In In re Cellect, the Federal Circuit explained that...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that when members of a patent family have different expiration dates due to patent term adjustments (PTAs), the earlier-expiring patent family members can be used as a basis for an...more
Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have...more
In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) In a significant appeal from ex parte reexamination proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) decision to invalidate four related patents on obviousness-type double patenting grounds (OTDP), holding that any analysis of OTDP for...more
In decisions rare of their kind, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) terminated two ex parte reexaminations in view of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by a different party. The decisions represent...more
In a precedential decision, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial & Appeal Board denied a motion for judgment based on either claim or issue preclusion, and in the alternative for a show cause order, in a...more
As the 1.5 year anniversary of the Trademark Modernization Act’s implementation approaches in June, the United States Patent and Trademark Office now offers an array of helpful guidance on the requirements, format, and even...more
Thank you for reading the April 2023 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter. This month, we discuss practice tips for the two new petition processes instituted by the Trademark Modernization Act and highlight...more
Steep Drop in Discretionary Denials — But Will It Last? The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may be becoming more petitioner-friendly following a June 2022 memorandum that significantly narrows a precedent-setting...more
Varian filed two petitions for IPR of BMI’s ’096 patent, which the Board instituted. Elekta filed copycat petitions and successfully joined Varian’s two instituted IPRs. A previously filed, parallel ex parte reexamination on...more