News & Analysis as of

Motion to Amend

Some Fed. Circ. Guidance On Patent Pleading Standard - Law360

After having its complaint for patent infringement dismissed for failure to state a claim and being denied its request to file an amended complaint in the Middle District of Georgia, Disc Disease Solutions turned to the...more

Despite Change in Motion to Amend Practice by Aqua Products, PTAB Orders Scope of Remand to be Limited to Federal Circuit’s...

by Knobbe Martens on

In an IPR on remand from the Federal Circuit on appeal of a motion to amend, the PTAB considered the scope of briefings of the parties in view of the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision Aqua Products v. Matal. The PTAB...more

PTAB Grants Two Motions to Amend in March -- Aberration or Sign of Things to Come?

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appears to have taken the position that neither party has the burden of persuasion with regard to Motions to Amend after the Aqua Products v. Matal en banc decision. It was unclear,...more

PTAB Gives Apple’s Foe A Second Bite By Granting Realtime Data’s Motion to Amend

by Pepper Hamilton LLP on

In an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, a patent owner may file one motion to amend the patent in one or more of the following ways: (a) cancel any challenged patent claim, or (b) for each challenged claim, propose a...more

For Substitute Claims, “Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law”

by Jones Day on

On March 20, 2018, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. v. Neology, Inc., Case IPR2016-01763, Paper 60 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2018), finding that Petitioner Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. (“Kapsch”)...more

Aqua Appears to be Much Ado About Nothing?

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

PTAB Permits “Do-Over” of Motion-to-Amend Briefing Following Aqua Products

by Jones Day on

In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable. The decision, issued on...more

PTAB Strategies and Insights - March 2018

The PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire patent life cycle in a global portfolio. This month we tackle three important...more

Inside the Courts – An Update From Skadden Securities Litigators - March 2018/ Volume 10 / Issue 1

This quarter's issue includes summaries and associated court opinions of selected cases principally decided between November 2017 and January 2018. The cases address developing trends in appraisal, class certification, core...more

Recent Federal Circuit Decisions Emphasize Effect of Factual Questions on Patent Eligibility

by Knobbe Martens on

In two recent cases, the Federal Circuit addressed the role of factual questions in resolving patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The first case was Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and the second was Aatrix Software v. Green...more

Motions to Amend at the PTAB after Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal – What’s a Patent Owner to Do?

In 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act and created new mechanisms to challenge issued claims at the Patent Office. The goal was to expeditiously resolve issues of patent validity in response to the public outcry...more

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend After Aqua Products

by Knobbe Martens on

In Polygroup Limited v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., IPR2016-01613, Paper 118 (Feb. 26, 2018), the PTAB granted the patent owner Willis Electric’s motion to amend a claim directed to lighted artificial trees. This decision...more

Issue Eleven: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

PTAB Grants-in-Part Motion to Amend Claims, Even Though Federal Circuit Previously Invalidated the Claims - In Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc., IPR2016-01600, Paper 35 (PTAB Feb. 14,...more

Motions to Amend at the PTAB -- Does Anyone Have the Burden (And Will That Change)?

Last year, the Federal Circuit decided the Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal case en banc in what could be considered the epitome of a fractured decision. After 148 pages and five separate opinions, the only agreed-to result...more

PTO’s Rehearing Petition in Bosch: Signaling Future Rulemaking After Aqua Products?

by Jones Day on

On February 5, 2018, the PTO filed a petition for rehearing of Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol’ns, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 22, 2017). The petition asks the panel “not . . . to alter its judgment, but only to...more

Federal Circuit Review - January 2018

by Knobbe Martens on

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

PTAB Concurrence Provides Guidance on Burden of Proof for Claim Amendments

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) allowed a patent owner to amend one of the challenged claims. In a concurring opinion, Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Fitzpatrick explained that the...more

PTAB Releases Another Update to Its Motions to Amend Study

On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced that it had updated its Motion to Amend Study to include all AIA trials through the end of Fiscal Year 2017 (which ended on...more

Federal Circuit Holds En Banc That The PTAB’s Determination on Whether The One Year Time-Bar is Triggered in Inter Partes Review...

On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, No. 2015-1944, 2018 WL 313065 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018). The issue before the en banc Court was the...more

PTAB Designates Informative Decisions on Timeliness of IPR Petitions

by Knobbe Martens on

In wake of the Federal Circuit’s Wi-Fi One decision, the PTAB has designated two of its decisions as informative on the issue of IPR petition timeliness under § 315(b). This statute provides that an IPR may not be instituted...more

CFPB defends judgment in enforcement action against biweekly mortgage payment companies

by Ballard Spahr LLP on

Despite the CFPB’s change in position after Mick Mulvaney’s appointment regarding the need for Nationwide Biweekly Administration to post a bond to stay execution of the $7.9 million judgment obtained by the CFPB, the CFPB...more

One More Dribble from Aqua

As explained in a recent post about Bosch Automotive Service v. Matal, the Federal Circuit held that the Aqua Products decision puts the burden on the IPR petitioner to show that a patentee’s proposed amendments do not comply...more

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal

by Knobbe Martens on

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

Aqua Holds Water; Board’s Denial of Motion to Amend Vacated Because Board Improperly Put Burden on Patent Owner

In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, [2015-1928] (December 22, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding of unpatentability of claims 1, 4–15, and 20–22, of U.S. Patent No. 6,904,796, on a remote...more

PTAB Issues Order Proposing Claim Amendments to Patent Owner

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB issued an order stating that it would grant Patent Owner’s motion to amend claims upon Patent Owner accepting further claim amendments suggested by the judges in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Godo...more

204 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 9
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.