News & Analysis as of

Patents Prior Art Claim Amendments

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Patent Held Invalid—Specification Disclaimer Prevented Claim to Earlier Priority Date

In Akeva L.L.C., v. Nike, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer in a specification that excluded a particular embodiment prevented later claims in the continuation patents from claiming the excluded embodiment,...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2019: The Federal Circuit Clarifies The Notice Requirements Of The Administrative Procedure...

In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 19-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the Federal Circuit offered important guidance to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) litigants regarding how the notice requirements of the Administrative...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

PTAB allows Amending Claims on Grounds not raised by Petitioner, but were Addressed by the District Court in its Finding of...

To amend challenged claims during an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the patent owner must show that the proposed amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability at issue in the IPR trial. But in a recent final written decision...more

Snell & Wilmer

Appealing the Rejection of a Patent Application

Snell & Wilmer on

Sometimes appealing an Examiner’s rejection is the only practical option. If no claims of valuable scope have been allowed or indicated as allowable, and all clarifying claim amendments, supporting evidence and salient...more

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

Global Patent Prosecution - May 2019: Strategic Use of the Patent Prosecution Highway

At last count, there are 27 Global and IP5 Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) participants with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Since the PPH provides a no fee way to speed up the examination process for...more

Jones Day

PTAB Makes Precedential Its Heightened Scrutiny Of Amended Claims In IPRs

Jones Day on

We recently posted about the panel opinion in Amazon.com v. Uniloc, a final written decision demonstrating how the PTAB has given heightened scrutiny to proposed substitute amended claims in an IPR. In addition to assessing...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Determining Whether a Claim Element or Combination of Elements Would Have Been Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional Is a Question of Fact - In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No....more

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

Buyer Beware: 5 Ways That Cheap Patent Application Only Bought You a Headache

Low-cost patent applications may cost quality. It’s no secret that many more clients than in the past are demanding that their outside patent counsel prepare patent applications at a lower cost—often far lower—than their...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB: Summaries of Key 2017 Decisions

In 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed more appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) than any other venue—a first in its over 30-year history. The post grant proceedings created by the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-1249 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2018) - In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) obviousness determination following...more

Knobbe Martens

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution disclaimer occurred when an applicant explained why claims were amended and the Examiner...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - January 2018

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

Knobbe Martens

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal

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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...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

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Will Review PTAB Rules for Claim Amendments in AIA Reviews

The full US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an order granting en banc review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s) rules governing amendments filed in the course of America Invents Act...more

16 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