The Autonomous Systems & Advanced Mobility (ASAM) space is headed for more change in 2023, generating new opportunities and challenges for a growing list of industry players. The adoption of new, complex and connected...more
5/9/2023
/ Aerospace ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Automation Systems ,
Aviation Industry ,
Cybersecurity ,
Electric Vehicles ,
Emerging Technologies ,
Environmental Social & Governance (ESG) ,
FCC ,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Transportation Industry
Key Points -
The EU aims to harmonize patent protection rules and flexibilities with a layer on top of national rules. This is in line with long-term efforts by the EU institutions to harmonize patent rules and motivated,...more
Patent Office Director Katherine Vidal recently issued a precedential decision addressing an issue of first impression before the Board: whether the patentability of multiple dependent claims must be determined separately for...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently rejected an inter partes review petition that relied on a conclusory and unsupported expert declaration. The expert’s written testimony, which repeated portions of the petition...more
Our newsletter reflects the focus of Akin Gump’s cross-practice autonomous systems and advanced mobility team on developments in the regulatory, policy, trade, intellectual property, and cybersecurity and privacy spaces....more
In the wake of her October 4, 2022 Precedential OpenSky decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Katherine Vidal issued another precedential decision further clarifying the actions that should be...more
The USPTO Director recently conducted sua sponte review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision granting adverse judgment in four IPR proceedings where a panel found that the patent owner had abandoned the contests. In a...more
Autonomous Akin brings you the latest news and developments regarding autonomous systems and advanced mobility so that you can keep a pulse on what is happening in government and industry that is impactful for your business....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a request for rehearing of a final written decision in which it had originally determined that the challenged were not unpatentable. On rehearing, the board found that petitioner’s...more
In a precedential 52-page sua sponte decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Katherine Vidal addressed several issues of first impression relating to sanctionable misconduct in inter partes...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a petition to institute inter partes review, finding there was no reasonable likelihood that petitioners would prevail on their obviousness challenges. In rendering its decision, the...more
In an IPR institution decision issued shortly after the USPTO issued interim guidance on discretionary denials, the PTAB held that the petition presented “compelling evidence of unpatentability,” foreclosing a Fintiv...more
A recent board decision denying inter partes review serves as a reminder that an expert opining on obviousness must at least meet the definition of an ordinarily skilled artisan. The patent at issue related to a...more
Petitioners moved for an order requiring Patent Owner to produce discovery comprising Final Infringement Contentions from related district court litigations between the parties. Petitioners set forth two independent bases...more
A judge in the District of Delaware has ruled that an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) does not apply to prior-art products, even if those products are “cumulative” of prior-art patents or printed publications that were...more
The USPTO recently issued new guidance on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will apply Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., a 2020 precedential decision which laid out considerations for denying institution of a post-grant...more
Key Points -
On June 21, 2022, USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued a memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation.”
Under...more
In a recent order, the Eastern District of Texas declined to preclude a defendant from raising prior art system references despite patentee’s argument that similar printed publications could have been raised in earlier inter...more
A district court recently denied a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 where the defendant successfully invalidated each claim of the patent at issue during an inter partes review proceeding. The district court...more
In a recent inter partes review proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relied on compelling evidence of secondary considerations to hold all challenged claims not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, the...more
In an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board applied guidance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and declined to consider an obviousness ground that was based on admissions about prior art in the...more
In two related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petitioner’s motion to exclude the declaration of an inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more
Applying recent Federal Circuit precedent requiring language evincing a present conveyance of patent rights, a district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania found that the contractual language “shall become the...more
A judge in the Northern District of Georgia has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement case for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court found that the complaint failed to meet the...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of a post-grant review proceeding because the petitioner failed to show the challenged patent was eligible for PGR. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner’s evidence,...more