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
2/11/2019
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Section 112
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
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
9/11/2018
/ §315(e) ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Claim Construction ,
Estoppel ,
Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 112 ,
USPTO
The AIA expressly anticipates and permits a patent owner and a petitioner to reach a settlement during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding. For IPRs, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) is entitled “Settlement” and provides, in pertinent...more
...In a recent (and rare) precedential decision, the Board reaffirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus does not change “the USPTO’s long-standing approach to indefiniteness” in the context of pre-issuance...more
9/2/2017
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Claim Construction ,
Indefiniteness ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Section 112 ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
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
8/2/2017
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Motion to Amend ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Section 112
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
6/21/2017
/ Administrative Procedure ,
Inadmissible Evidence ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Newly Discovered Evidence ,
Novo Nordisk ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Prior Art ,
Supplemental Information