On the heels of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of iRhythm Technologies’ inter partes review petition, the PTO has now issued additional decisions clarifying the role...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent...more
6/17/2025
/ Healthcare ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Medical Devices ,
New Guidance ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
USPTO
On the heels of the rescission of the Fintiv guidance memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has again reshaped the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials. On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director issued a new...more
4/3/2025
/ Corporate Counsel ,
Filing Deadlines ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pending Litigation ,
Post-Grant Review ,
USPTO
On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum that provided guidance regarding the application of the Apple v. Fintiv decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
In order to prepare and prosecute utility, design, and plant patent matters in front of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “Office”), the USPTO requires practitioners to demonstrate possession of the...more