Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
The estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) had largely prevented requesters from challenging claims of a patent via ex parte reexamination after an inter partes review (IPR) that resulted in a final written decision...more
Since the America Invents Act (“AIA”) established a new venue for hearing patent disputes, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), much ink has been spilled regarding the impacts of this forum on patent litigation and the...more
I. Introduction - The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) was years in the making. From the first patent reform bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith in June 20052 until the final House and Senate debates in...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) maintains a list of all PTAB precedential and informative decisions organized by subject matter. These precedential decisions establish “binding authority concerning major...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
[co-author: Jay Bober, Summer Associate] The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for...more
It has been argued that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) cannot engage in rulemaking through decisions made by its administrative patent judges (APJs), even if those decisions are made precedential, as APJs...more
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet conducted a hearing to discuss recent court decisions, namely the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex. Previously...more
When post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act began, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") treated motions to amend in those proceedings like most other motions: the movant, here the patentee, bore...more
Hyatt v. Pato (No. 2017-1722, 9/24/18) (Reyna, Wallach, Hughes) - Hughes, J. Reversing dismissal for lack of subject matter description stating, “the exclusive jurisdiction of this court and the Eastern Virginia district...more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Aqua Products, a deeply fractured court provides a glimpse into the perspectives that some of the judges have on post-grant practice at the...more
On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, placing the burden of persuasion on the petitioner to prove the invalidity of amended claims in post-grant...more
The recent decisions of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granting Celgene’s requests for rehearing in parallel Inter Partes Review proceedings brought by Kyle Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) are...more
In a split decision with Judge Lourie dissenting, the Federal Circuit vacated an obviousness rejection that had been affirmed in an ex parte appeal to the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The decision was rendered in In...more
Reaffirming the petitioner’s burden of proof codified in 35 USC § 316(e), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) finding the patent owner’s...more
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
On July 25, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held in In re Magnum Oil Tools International (Newman, O’Malley & Chen) that the burden of production to show unobviousness does not shift to a patent owner...more
The Federal Circuit Will Review Appeals from Inter Partes Review Proceedings Under the “Substantial Evidence” Standard - In Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A., Appeal No. 2014-1779, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board), finding that an IPR petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that a cited prior art U.S. patent reference...more
Defendant Bears Burden of Proof in Declaratory Judgment Case - In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Venture, LLC, Appeal No. 12-1128, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s determination that the burden of...more