After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner has an opportunity to file a motion to amend the claims and thereby propose a reasonable number of substitute claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). Unlike the...more
If you are a patent owner facing an inter partes review (“IPR”) or other post-grant review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), your best chance of success is to convince the PTAB not to institute a trial. But that...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a propose change to the standard for construing both unexpired and amended patent claims in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings under the America Invents Act...more
5/9/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
Comment Period ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proposed Rules ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
Several months ago, we were struck with the question of whether, as counsel for a patent owner at the ITC, our clients’ case would benefit from a Markman hearing. Claim construction during an ITC investigation was routinely...more
2015 was a busy year for post-grant review appeals at the Federal Circuit and produced notable opinions in the areas of claim construction, IPR procedural issues, and the constitutionality of IPRs in general. In 2015, the...more
Mintz Levin has won extraordinary relief for its client, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., convincing the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an IPR final written decision adverse to a patent owner for the first...more
Mintz Levin has won extraordinary relief for its client, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., convincing the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an IPR final written decision adverse to a patent owner for the first...more