On April 18, the USPTO announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”), which sets forth proposed rules affecting AIA trial proceedings for public comment. These proposed rules relate primarily to how the Patent Trial...more
Since the introduction of inter partes review proceedings in 2012, AIA trial practice has been constantly evolving and the USPTO has signaled that big changes may be ahead. Starting with the USPTO director’s 2022 memorandum...more
6/30/2023
/ Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) ,
America Invents Act ,
Continuing Legal Education ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Validity ,
Patents ,
Trial Practice Guidance ,
USPTO ,
Webinars
Please join Fitch Even and Greaves Brewster for a free webinar, “The European Patent System Is A-Changin’: The Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court,” on October 18 at 9:00 a.m. PDT / 10:00 a.m. MDT / 11:00 a.m. CDT / 12...more
On May 27, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit agreed that the Commissioner for Patents, performing the duties of the Director of the USPTO, had the authority to decide a request for rehearing of a...more
On December 28, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not decline to consider the patentability of a claim challenged in an inter partes review (IPR)...more
Most patents challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are involved in co-pending litigation. A threshold question is whether litigation counsel will also handle the IPR...more
On September 29, in In re Vivint, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the interplay between petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination. The court held that the USPTO abused its...more
Don’t Panic -
Facing an inter partes review (IPR) challenge is a new experience for many patent owners, even though IPRs have quickly become a preferred avenue for accused infringers and other interested parties to challenge...more
On March 9, in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the no-appeal provision of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) does not preclude appellate review of the PTAB’s estoppel determination under section 315(e)(1) when...more
3/16/2021
/ § 314(d) ,
35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) ,
Appeals ,
Estoppel ,
Facebook ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Social Media ,
Triggering Event