In a decision issued today, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether an Examiner can rely on the filing date of a provisional application under pre-AIA 102(e) to support a rejection based on a later-filed and...more
Today, the Director of the U.S. Patent Office designated the final written decision in Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) precedential as to section II.E.3. In that section, the Board...more
On May 5th, the Board designated an order regarding discretionary denial precedential. Apple v. Fintiv, Inc, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In the two months since that designation, more than...more
In a 7-2 decision by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held today that §314(d)’s bar on judicial review of the agency’s decision to institute inter partes review precluded appeal of the PTAB's application of §315(b)’s time...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
Kilpatrick Townsend partners John Alemanni, Tina McKeon, and Wab Kadaba recently presented to clients on the topic of “PTAB Trials Insights & Strategies – Leveraging Recent Developments at the PTAB” at the annual Kilpatrick...more
The PTAB has declined to institute proceedings on challenged claims on the basis that one or more of the challenged claims is indefinite. See, e.g., IPR2015-00662, IPR2013-00036. While this may seem like a positive outcome...more
Petitioners are best served by pursuing a limited number of grounds based on the best prior art they can find. This is due in large measure to (1) the limited space Petitioner has to make its arguments, and (2) estoppel based...more
The Supreme Court issued two decisions today in the cases of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, et al., and SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, addressing inter partes review (IPR). In Oil States, the...more
4/25/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently issued a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for remands from the Federal Circuit. Remands of America Invents Act trials (IPR, CBM, and PGR) and ex parte and reexamination...more
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Aqua Products “the burden of proving the unpatentability of all claims in an IPR—both original and amended—is on the petitioner.” Five opinions (including one...more
Kilpatrick Townsend’s John Alemanni, Allison Dobson, Matthew Holohan, and Wab Kadaba recently presented on navigating the Post-Grant landscape. Here are three key takeaways from their presentation.
The STRONG Patents Act...more
In 2012, the American Invents Act created Inter Partes review (“IPR”) and related proceedings that allowed parties to request that the Patent Office institute a trial to determine the patentability of issued claims. Over the...more