News & Analysis as of

Patent Ownership

USPTO Fee Increases Impact IPR Filing Costs

by Orrick - IP Landscape on

Much like death and taxes, USPTO fee increases are a sure thing. On November 14, 2017, the USPTO issued a new final rule raising many of the fees charged by the Office. The Office also provided a chart that shows the...more

Amicus Curiae Briefs Authorized on Tribal Sovereign Immunity in IPRs of Restasis® Patents

by Knobbe Martens on

The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s recent motion to terminate pending IPRs on patents purported to cover Allergan’s Restasis® product has spurred two parties to seek authorization from the PTAB to file amicus briefs. Earlier this...more

PTAB Designates Three Informative Opinions Which Address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

by Jones Day on

On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative....more

Post-Aqua: The Federal Circuit Vacated Denial Of Patent Owner's Motion To Amend

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

In Silver Peak Systems, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-2017 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent...more

Ownership Dispute Strips Federal Circuit of Jurisdiction to Review

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a case because the issue of patent ownership was a state law concern to be decided before reaching issues...more

PTAB Should Have Given Credit to Inventor Corroborating Evidence

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the issue of whether the patent owner had provided sufficient evidence of prior conception to establish inurement by third-party activity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a...more

PTAB Decision Provides Guidance On Using Art Previously Considered By The Office

by Jones Day on

On October 24th, the PTAB designated three decisions related to discretionary petition denials under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) as informative. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman is discussed below. We previously reported on Hospira,...more

Challenged Claims are Obvious Based on Patent Owners’ Prior Art

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) decision finding the challenged claims obvious over a single prior art reference owned by the patent owner,...more

Aqua Products Levels the Playing Field at the PTAB

by Latham & Watkins LLP on

By giving patent owners a more effective tool for amending claims during an IPR proceeding, the Federal Circuit’s latest en banc decision changes the way stakeholders approach these proceedings. Key Points: - The burden...more

March-in Rights and Compulsory License in the United States

March-in rights in the US were created in 1980, as part of the Bayh-Dole Act. Simply stated, when the US government funds research that results in patents, it obtains rights to those patents. These rights are retained even...more

The PTAB Authorizes Additional Motion To Amend Briefing in View of Aqua Products

by Knobbe Martens on

The Board authorized petitioner Kingston to file a Response to the patent owner’s Reply to petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend, based on the Federal Circuit’s en banc holding that the burden to establish...more

Petitioner has the Burden of Proving Unpatentability of Amended Patent Claims in IPRs

by Cozen O'Connor on

During an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concerning Aqua Products, Inc.’s (Aqua) U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183 (the ‘183 patent), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Aqua’s motion to amend certain ‘183 patent claims....more

It May Have Just Gotten a Little Easier to Amend Claims in an IPR

A Factionated Federal Circuit Holds that Petitioner has the Burden to Show Unpatenability - In Aqua Products, Inc., v. Matal, [2015-1177] (October 4, 2017), a plurality of the Federal Circuit en banc held that §316(e)...more

Burden of Proving Unpatentability of Amended Claims Placed on IPR Petitioners

by Jones Day on

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

General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha: PTAB Explains Factors Considers for Follow-On Petitions

On September 6, 2017, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an “informative” decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd, v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha setting forth the Board’s framework for analyzing...more

Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Fact-Finding Regarding Conception of Invention

by Jones Day on

In IPR2014-01198, the PTAB found that the patent owner failed to prove that the patented invention was conceived prior to the date of the prior art, and thus concluded that the patent was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit...more

Federal Circuit Rejects Some USPTO Requirements For Amending Claims During IPR Proceedings

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision rejecting certain procedures adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) limiting a patent owner’s ability to...more

Federal Circuit Places The Burden Of Persuasion For Motions To Amend In IPRs On Petitioners

by Knobbe Martens on

The Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision instructing the PTAB to assess patentability of amended claims in IPR proceedings without placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner. Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No....more

AQUA PRODUCTS: The Federal Circuit Shifts The Burden of Proof On Amending Claims During An IPR From The Patent Owner To The...

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aqua Products Inc., v. Matal materially changes the burden of proof associated with the patentability of amended claims during an inter partes...more

Petitioners Bear Burden Of Proving Claims Amended During IPR Unpatentable . . . For Now

by Jones Day on

In yesterday’s decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 15-1177 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017) (en banc), the Federal Circuit issued five opinions, spanning 148 pages, addressing the question of who bears the burden of proving...more

CAFC Eases Amendment Process In IPR Proceedings

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

Today in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a fractured Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sitting en banc decided to flip the burden of persuasion onto petitioners in IPR proceedings to show that an amendment is not...more

Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal: En Banc Decision on Motions to Amend Claims in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings Issues

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

Those who were hoping for a clear standard to emerge as a result of the Federal Circuit’s grant of en banc review on the issue of burdens of proof for motions to amend in post-grant proceedings under the American Invents Act...more

Amending claims may be getting easier in post-grant proceedings, at least for now

by Thompson Coburn LLP on

In a highly fractured case, the full Federal Circuit today in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, found that the burden of persuasion rests on the petitioner to show that proposed claims in an inter partes review...more

In IPRs, Petitioner Must Show Claim Amendments Unpatentable

by Morgan Lewis on

A recent Federal Circuit ruling shifts the burden to petitioners, which will likely lead to patent owners filing more motions to amend....more

Assignor Estoppel Is Not a Defense in IPR

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential its 2013 decision that assignor estoppel is not a defense for patent owners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky...more

259 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 11
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.