News & Analysis as of

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Examinations Ex Partes Reexamination

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – November/December 2024

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

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

How Petitions Affect Reexamination and Reissue Prosecution and Clarification of a Dismissed Petition

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

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

Demonstrating Unequivocal Intent to Broaden in Reissue

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

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – June 2024

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

Knobbe Martens

PTO Explains that Old School Proceedings (Reissue/Reexam) Must Generally Yield to New School Proceedings (AIA Trials) for Claim...

Knobbe Martens on

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

Jones Day

SCOTUS Rejects Petition To Review Section 325(d)

Jones Day on

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

Jones Day

Intervening Court Decisions May Prevent Denial of Review Under § 325(d)

Jones Day on

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

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

The Board Gives Section 325(d) Sharp Teeth—Part II – The Petitioner's Criticality to Selecting and Using The Right Prior Art

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

8 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