The PTAB recently clarified eligibility for a covered business method review (CBM). See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. CBM2018-00011 (P.T.A.B. July 12, 2018) (Paper 12). To establish standing for CBM review, a petitioner...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held a Boardside Chat webinar on June 7, 2018, during which Administrative Patent Judges Justin T. Arbes and Kevin W. Cherry discussed motions to exclude and motions to strike in AIA trials. ...more
We have previously discussed the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, which held that the PTAB cannot institute an IPR on only some of the petitioned claims. One open question was...more
On June 1, 2018, the PTAB announced new guidance on motions to amend in AIA trials.
In view of the decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290...more
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, holding that a decision to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less all claims challenged in...more
Rumors of the PTAB’s demise were greatly exaggerated, it turns out. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday that Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) violate neither Article III nor the Seventh Amendment of the...more
4/26/2018
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
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 ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
On January 10, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions weighing on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as informative:
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2017) (AIA § 315(b), insufficient funds at...more
On November 14th, the USPTO issued a final rule setting and adjusting patent fees during fiscal year 2017. The new fees, set to take effect January 16, 2018, include upward adjustments of fees for requesting Inter Partes...more
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, to decide whether inter partes review (IPR) violates the Constitution by extinguishing patent rights...more
7/4/2017
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Private Property ,
Public Property ,
Right to a Jury ,
SCOTUS ,
Stays
The multiple flavors of review and prosecution at the Patent Office produce an environment where a patent family could be subject to inconsistent results. Conceivably, patents in a pre-AIA patent family could simultaneously...more