Monthly Minute | Provisional Patent Applications
This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzed collateral estoppel and the extent to which the non-provisional document would benefit from the provisional application’s priority date, as it relates to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)....more
The PTAB recently provided a pre-AIA priority analysis for reference patents in Roku, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC, No. IPR2024-01057, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2025). This decision highlights the...more
In a precedential final written decision, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board concluded that a patent does not need to contain a claim supported by a provisional application’s disclosure to draw priority to that provisional for...more
On November 19th, Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its Substantive Preliminary Motion No. 3 in Interference No. 106,132...more
Under the patent statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently considered whether a dispute over a patent’s priority date justified filing two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the same claims. The...more
The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by Kyle Bass against two of the five Juxtapid patents listed in the Orange Book. Two of the cited references may...more
Several of our recent posts have discussed petitioners’ use of priority denial to attack patents with intervening prior art, but the issue of adequate support in an earlier filed application may also work in reverse against...more
Last week, we analyzed the Federal Circuit's Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. case from early September. In that case, the Federal Circuit held that an IPR petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that an...more
In Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that in order for a patent to qualify as prior art as of its provisional application filing date, the provisional application must support the...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding that an IPR petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that a cited prior art U.S. patent reference...more
It is well accepted that in order to establish that a patent is entitled to claim priority to a previously filed provisional application, it must be shown that the claims of the patent have written description support in the...more