News & Analysis as of

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patent Prosecution Appeals

MoFo Tech

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

MoFo Tech on

Knowing what qualifies as prior art is a core requirement of patent practitioners—whether in life sciences, in the technology sectors or in post-grant proceedings. It is important to keep abreast of changes to the rules,...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Resolving Claim Ambiguity via Reissue

Takeaways - -Intra-patent claim inconsistencies are errors correctible via reissue. -Subtle legal distinctions in reissue may require PTAB appeals. Patent prosecution errors occur. One such error that occurs is...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Expediting Patent Prosecution After An Advisory Action

It can be difficult to advance prosecution of a U.S. patent application efficiently and effectively after prosecution has been closed and an Advisory Action has been mailed. Various U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Patent Prosecution Tool Kit: The Changing Face of Non-Obviousness

It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2020 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Communication Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-1672 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week explores two important procedural issues: a court’s discretion to...more

Knobbe Martens

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution disclaimer occurred when an applicant explained why claims were amended and the Examiner...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Judge Koeltl Agrees that “Access” to Confidential Information is Enough to Trigger a Prosecution Bar

On November 20, 2017, District Judge John G. Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) approved a prosecution bar for “any individual who gains access” to confidential material. In addition, Judge Koeltl determined that post-issuance proceedings,...more

Fenwick & West LLP

An Examination “Off-Ramp” For Motions To Amend Still Raises Hopes and Questions

Fenwick & West LLP on

During the first three years of implementing the America Invents Act (AIA), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision-making created a perception that a patent owner’s ability to amend claims during a post-grant...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Not Obvious to Combine for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

Summary: Appellant appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) an obviousness rejection to claims directed to a user interface that displays currency trading information. Appellant argued in the appeal that the...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Design Patent Case Digest: Simmons Bedding Company v. Sealy Technology LLC

Decision Date: March 31, 2015 - Court: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board - Patents: D622,531 - Holding: Examiner’s decision in reexamination proceeding not to adopt Requester’s obviousness rejections REVERSED...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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