Latest Posts › Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Share:

The PTAB Goes to Europe: Four Recent Section 101 Decisions Designated as Informative

On July 1, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated four of its recent 35 U.S.C. § 101 decisions as informative.  Each of these decisions came down after and applied...more

USPTO on Patent Eligibility -- Examples 41 and 42

On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more

USPTO on Patent Eligibility -- Example 40

On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more

USPTO on Patent Eligibility -- Example 37

On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more

In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

One final 35 U.S.C. § 101 case inched across the finish line at the end of 2018. And while this one is not particular remarkable substantively, its concurrence from a particularly opinionated judge may give it an unwelcome...more

USPTO Makes Ex Parte Jung an Informative Decision

Earlier this month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) changed a number of decisions to "informative" status. An informative decision reflects "the Board's general...more

Ex Parte Reis (PTAB 2018)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Broad (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has often been criticized for being particularly harsh when reviewing appeals of claims rejected by an examiner of grounds of patent-ineligibly...more

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against DSS's U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted the IPRs and issued final written...more

Cloud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems, Inc. (PTAB 2017)

Petitioner Cloud9 requested covered business method (CBM) review of IPC's U.S. Patent No. 8,189,566 before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Due to the claims of the '566 patent not reciting a financial element, the...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more

Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Many patent attorneys have a visceral, disapproving reaction to negative claim limitations -- elements that specify what a claim does not cover. While a line of Federal Circuit cases has established that negative limitations...more

PTAB Finds Two Sets of Claims to Be Not Abstract

USPTO SealAs the fallout from the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case makes its way through the federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), applicants and patentees continue to struggle...more

More Misinformation Regarding the Patent System and Non-Practicing Entities

The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more

Cambridge Assoc., LLC v. Capital Dynamics (PTAB 2014); PNC Bank v. Secure Axcess, LLC (PTAB 2014)

As the fallout of the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision propagates through the USPTO and lower courts, many patent applications and patents directed to business methods are being rejected or struck down for...more

SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc. (P.T.A.B. 2013)

In an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has struck down claims directed to a computer-implemented business method as failing to meet...more

43 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide