News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Ex Partes Reexamination United States Patent and Trademark Office

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

What Should the USPTO Consider Changing for Implementing Post-Final Written Decision Estoppel in Ex Parte Reexamination Based on...

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

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

The Evolution of “New” in the “Substantial New Question” Standard in Patent Reexamination

As the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Acting USPTO Director refocus challengers, and with them Patent Owners, towards reexamination from inter partes review proceedings, the need to understand the nuance of “new” in...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – June 2025

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

Jones Day

PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Concurrent Ex Parte Reexamination

Jones Day on

In Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Chien-Hao Chen et al, IPR2024-01230, Paper 12 (PTAB Feb. 19, 2025), the PTAB granted the institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) while an ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) on the...more

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 201: The Risks and Rewards of Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) comes with risks and rewards for both patent challengers and patent owners. Patent challengers enjoy a lower threshold for institution and avoid the estoppel risk of other post-grant proceedings...more

Fish & Richardson

EPRx 101: Getting to Know Ex Parte Reexamination

Fish & Richardson on

Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – November/December 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

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

Sterne Kessler’s Reissue, Reexamination, and Supplemental Examination Practice Tips – May 2024

In the mid-2000s, the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) determined that reexaminations would be more consistent and legally correct if performed by a centralized set of experienced and specially trained Examiners. As a result, the...more

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

Requester Side Benchmarks for Successful Reexamination Requests

Takeaways: -A requester can have a voice in ex parte reexamination prosecution. - Requesters should strategically structure their request documents to hedge against potential patent owner amendment and argument. The...more

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

Strategies for Successful Patent Owner Reexamination Requests

Takeaways: - Patent owner requested reexaminations are not an admission of claim unpatentability. - Patent owners can and should control the reexamination request narrative. Patent owners must consider the pros and...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

USPTO Issues Updated Guidance on Obviousness

Foley & Lardner LLP on

For the first time in nearly 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v....more

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

Fixing Unintentional Duty of Disclosure and Candor Issues Through Supplemental Examination

A significant procedure for patent owners, Supplemental Examination, was established in the 2012 America Invents Act when Congress determined there should be a proceeding to turn events that in the past could lead to...more

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

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2022 Decisions

As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

No Mulligans Here: PTO Rewinds Reexamination Based on Estoppel

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) terminated a pending ex parte reexamination after finding that the challenger was estopped because the prior art references could have been raised in a prior inter partes review (IPR)....more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: The Resurgence and Perils of Ex Parte Reexaminations

Ex parte reexaminations have re-emerged as an increasingly important component of patent litigation and licensing negotiations. With the passage of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) and the advent of inter partes reviews...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Discretionary Denial under § 325(d): Strategic Implications of the PTAB’s Advanced...

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has increasingly used its discretionary denial authority in recent years. Although the PTAB’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and Fintiv grabbed many headlines in 2021, the...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends: Editors' Introduction

Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed patent litigation. In its first...more

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

2021 PTAB Year in Review: Analysis & Trends

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Love it or hate it, ignore the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at your peril. The introduction of the PTAB as part of the America Invents Act over ten years ago has forever changed...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

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Winter 2022

Fenwick & West LLP on

In This Issue - Artificial Intelligence: Deepfakes in the Entertainment Industry — Advances in “deepfake” media techniques that use deep learning AI—from uncanny impersonation videos of Tom Cruise and other...more

Haug Partners LLP

How Different Claim Construction Standards Can Ultimately Determine the Validity of a Patent

Haug Partners LLP on

Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Immunex Corp. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC addressing the different claim construction standards used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (broadest reasonable...more

Snell & Wilmer

Appealing the Rejection of a Patent Application

Snell & Wilmer on

Sometimes appealing an Examiner’s rejection is the only practical option. If no claims of valuable scope have been allowed or indicated as allowable, and all clarifying claim amendments, supporting evidence and salient...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - July 2019: Are the DMV Sloths From Zootopia Reflective of the Pace for Reissue Applications from...

The movie Zootopia was hysterically funny because it equated animal stereotypes to what we encounter every day. For example, the best employee at the DMV was named Flash – who was a sloth. Actually, the entire DMV was run by...more

Jones Day

SCOTUS Rejects Petition To Review Section 325(d)

Jones Day on

On November 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected a petition to review the PTAB’s refusal to deny IPR institution under § 325(d), in a case where the challenged patent had survived several...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Chastises PTAB Over Moving Target On Ex Parte Appeal

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The Federal Circuit decision in In re Durance is a rare precedential decision in an ex parte appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision rejecting a pending patent application. The Court took the USPTO to task...more

32 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