News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Administrative Procedure

Fish & Richardson

PTAB Issues FAQs on Interim Process for Workload Management

Fish & Richardson on

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a list of FAQs related to the new bifurcated process for discretionary denial established in the March 26 memorandum issued by Acting Director Stewart. The FAQs...more

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 101: Getting to Know Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more

Fish & Richardson

Recapping a Busy Summer for Director Review

Fish & Richardson on

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal had a busy end to her summer, issuing six decisions as part of the Director Review process between July 10 and August 22. In the six decisions, the...more

Fish & Richardson

USPTO Issues Proposed Rules on Discretionary Denial in PTAB Proceedings

Fish & Richardson on

One year ago, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that set forth several ideas related to America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings before the Patent Trial...more

Jones Day

Amended Claims In IPRs Must Clear Higher Hurdle Than Original Claims

Jones Day on

An IPR of issued patent claims is statutorily limited to prior art challenges based on patents and printed publications under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute an IPR of existing patent claims...more

Jones Day

Indefiniteness Again Leads To Unsuccessful IPR Challenge

Jones Day on

The PTAB may institute IPR proceedings only on the basis of certain prior art that is potentially invalidating under § 102 (novelty) or § 103 (obviousness). The PTAB may not institute IPR on any other unpatentability grounds,...more

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

Global Patent Prosecution Newsletter - September 2018: Third Party Submissions in the U.S.: What You Need to Know

The America Invents Act provides an expanded process for a third party to submit prior art to the examiner concerning any U.S. patent application. The new process is aimed to encourage the public to submit relevant art as a...more

Jones Day

After SAS, Indefinite Claims Can Be A Definite Problem For IPR Petitioners

Jones Day on

The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...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

Jones Day

PTAB Grants Rare Motion To Amend Patent Claim After Federal Circuit Remand

Jones Day on

Last year, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s original decision denying the patent owner’s motion to amend two claims in IPR2014-00090, holding that the Board erred by “insist[ing] that the patent owner discuss whether...more

Jones Day

PTAB Denies Timely, Relevant Supplement to Petition

Jones Day on

By rule, a petitioner may request permission from the Board to submit supplemental information in an IPR proceeding if: (1) the request is filed within one month of the Board’s institution decision, and (2) the supplemental...more

11 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