New Developments in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting and Original Patent Requirements — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Disputing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter in PGRs and IPRs - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue in IPR and PGR Practice – Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Reissue vs. Reexamination in IPR and PGR Practice - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #14: Tom Rozylowicz
Motions to Amend: PTO Pilot Program Extended - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Talking PTAB with Bob Steinberg
Indefiniteness Before the PTAB
Is The Deck Stacked Against Patent Owners In The PTAB?
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court handed down a highly-anticipated decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., finding that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”)—the judges who sit on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings (IPRs) challenging patents issued before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). ...more
There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern...more
On Friday, May 1, 2020, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) paused all activity in the significant number of PTAB cases remanded to it from the Federal Circuit...more
Powerful. Resilient. Ever-evolving. These characteristics of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were on full display in 2019. This past year the PTAB received more than 1,300 inter partes review (IPR), post grant review...more
To wrap up 2019 and usher in 2020 for practitioners who handle Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) matters, Foley partners Jeanne Gills, Steve Maebius, and George Quillin discussed 2019’s major developments in a webinar on...more
Late in the day on December 16, 2019, three different petitions asked the full Federal Circuit to overturn a panel’s decision that members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were appointed in violation of the...more
The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution1 provides that “principal officers” of the United States must be appointed by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate. “Inferior officers,” on the other hand,...more
This document provides a factual overview of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, discusses the court’s remedy, and addresses implications for litigants with Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases pending...more
In a surprising precedential ruling, with the potential to vacate past decisions by administrative patent judges (“APJs”) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled...more
On October 31, 2019, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") issued a decision, authored by Judge Moore, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140. The CAFC held that the...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., October 31, 2019) - Since the inception of inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), there have been a number of...more
Yesterday October 31, 2019, a 3-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen) issued a unanimous decision holding that the USPTO’s appointment practice for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) violates the...more
n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
Under constitutional principles of United States law, states generally enjoy sovereign immunity. This immunity, enshrined in the 11th amendment of the US Constitution, bars private parties from bringing lawsuits against the...more
SAS sought an inter partes review (IPR) of ComplementSoft’s patent. In its petition, SAS alleged that all of the patent’s claims were unpatentable. The PTAB determined to institute trial on some, but not all, of the...more
Most people think of “intellectual property” as a type of property. This makes sense because, well, “property” is in the name. However, as lawyers know all too well, the law is never that simple. As it turns out, at least one...more
In light of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu (IP Update, Vol. 21, No. 5), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on April 24 issued its decision in the closely watched patent case Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). The case addressed a constitutional challenge to...more
On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that inter partes review (IPR) proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) do not violate Article III or implicate the Seventh Amendment. ...more
Anyone reading this post is likely well aware that on April 24 the Supreme Court put an end to the PTAB’s practice of instituting inter partes review (IPR) on less than all claims challenged in an IPR petition in SAS...more