On April 19, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes rules regarding the exercise of discretion to determine whether to institute an Inter Partes...more
On April 16, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions in America Invents Act (AIA)...more
On December 20, 2019, the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its decision in IPR2018-01039, addressing “What is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted...more
1/13/2020
/ Administrative Appeals ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Hulu ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Printed Publications ,
Prior Art ,
PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) ,
Totality of Evidence
On October 3, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) completed its review of the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) proposed new rule regarding changing the claim construction standard applied in...more
On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court granted WilmerHale client PNC Bank National Association's (PNC Bank) petition for writ of certiorari and vacated a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit restricting the...more
5/17/2018
/ Appeals ,
Certiorari ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
PNC ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated
The inter partes review estoppel provision (35 U.S.C. § 315(e)) says that a petitioner (or real party in interest) in an IPR that results in a final written decision on a patent claim may not assert validity in a U.S. Patent...more
The author reviews a recent unusual PTAB scenario—the inter partes review petitioner successfully stopped an IPR proceeding, which the patent owner wanted to continue, before the board reached a trial-institution decision—and...more