News & Analysis as of

Patent Validity Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patent Ownership

Saul Ewing LLP

Federal Circuit Rehearing Denial in Forum Selection Ruling Is Good News for Patent Owners

Saul Ewing LLP on

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc of a precedential panel decision regarding forum selection clauses. Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Sarepta Therapeutics,...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Ladas & Parry LLP on

On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that government entities could not be considered “persons” entitled to challenge patents owned by others before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Knobbe Martens

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

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

Knobbe Martens

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

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

Jones Day

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

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

Morgan Lewis

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Patent Invalidation Based on Lack of APA Due Process

Morgan Lewis on

Inter partes review (IPR) petitioners must ensure adequate notice of arguments against validity; patent owners must preserve rights to defend against all arguments raised by petitioners—even when they arise late in the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Rejects Consideration of New Issues on Remand

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of a remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to consider evidence and arguments presented for the first time on remand....more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

CAFC’s Husky Decision Makes Sledding Tougher for Patent Owners in PTAB Appeals

The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”). The majority’s decision...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Refusal to Permit Claim Amendments Remanded

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the standard for granting a motion to amend claims in inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a conclusion by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that the...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

En Banc Federal Circuit To Review Standards for Amending Claims During AIA Proceedings

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In a rare grant of a petition for rehearing en banc, the court decided that an appeal “warrants en banc consideration” of who bears what burden when amending in an IPR. In re: Aqua Products, No. 15-1177, slip op. at 2 (Fed....more

12 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