News & Analysis as of

America Invents Act › Chevron Deference › Patent Trial and Appeal Board

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is a United States federal statute enacted in 2011 aimed at simplifying the U.S. patent system and allowing inventions to be brough to market sooner. The AIA makes significant... more +
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is a United States federal statute enacted in 2011 aimed at simplifying the U.S. patent system and allowing inventions to be brough to market sooner. The AIA makes significant changes to the patent system, including changing from a first-to-invent scheme to a first-to-file scheme, eliminating interference proceedings and developing post-grant opposition.  less -
Venable LLP

Loper Decision Impact on Patent Law

Venable LLP on

Venable has offered general thoughts on the potential fallout from the Supreme Court's reversal of the long-standing Chevron deference, as well as practice area-specific analysis. Here, the Intellectual Property Litigation...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Chevron Overruled, but PTAB Likely to Emerge Unscathed

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Administrative agencies long enjoyed deference from the courts under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Chevron required courts to give leeway to agencies interpreting...more

Sunstein LLP

Court’s Strict Interpretation of Timing Requirement May Force Patent Validity Challenges in Two Forums

Sunstein LLP on

The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

BakerHostetler

Director of PTO Requests Chevron Deference for Precedential Opinion Panel

BakerHostetler on

The Federal Circuit recently asked the government to submit an amicus brief to address “what, if any, deference should be afforded to decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board Precedential Opinion Panel (‘POP’), and...more

WilmerHale

INSIGHT: SAS v. Iancu - Changes to Inter Partes Review and Beyond

WilmerHale on

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). SAS involved a challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) practice of instituting inter partes...more

Jones Day

Winner’s Playbook: Behind The Scenes Of The SAS Case

Jones Day on

On April 24, 2018, in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confronts inter partes reviews under the America Invents Act. The...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Patent System after Oil States and SAS – What’s the future?

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On April 24th, the Supreme Court decided two important cases related to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for reconsidering the prior grant of a patent – Oil States Energy...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Supreme Court Tells the Patent Office That IPR Proceedings Are “All-or-Nothing” Affairs

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on

On April 24, 2018, the same day that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) challenges to issued patents in one decision (Oil States Energy Services v. Green’s Energy Group), it also...more

BakerHostetler

[Webinar] Supreme Court Issues Decisions in Oil States and SAS Cases: A Discussion of the Impact on Patent Law and Inter Partes...

BakerHostetler on

This timely and fast-moving webinar provides insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the recently issued Supreme Court decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Stayin' alive: What’s next for IPRs after Oil States and SAS

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On April 24, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided two important cases that directly impact inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and patent litigation as a whole. In Oil States Energy...more

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP

How the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled on Inter Partes Review and What It Means for Future Patent Challenges

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday on two closely monitored cases impacting how patents could be challenged. In the more high-profile case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPR) process...more

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

Supreme Court Strikes Down PTAB Partial Institution Practice: If PTAB Institutes IPR, It Must Address All Challenged Claims in Any...

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

The Supreme Court has ruled by a narrow majority of 5-4 that the Patent Office’s regulation allowing for partial institution decisions in inter partes review is foreclosed by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). SAS Institute Inc....more

Troutman Pepper

Federal Circuit Slams PTAB Amendment Policy

Troutman Pepper on

On October 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled an earlier panel decision and found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had been impermissibly placing the burden of...more

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Federal Circuit Finds That Petitioners Have Burden Of Persuasion Of Unpatentability Of Claims Amended During An IPR Proceeding,...

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. on

In a much anticipated decision, the Federal Circuit has narrowly decided that a patent owner moving to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) does not have the burden of persuasion that the claims are patentable....more

Hogan Lovells

Federal Circuit Shifts Burden of Proof for Amendments in Post-Grant Proceedings

Hogan Lovells on

On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, placing the burden of persuasion on the petitioner to prove the invalidity of amended claims in post-grant...more

Fish & Richardson

Aqua Products En Banc Hearing Reveals Further Administrative Law Issues

Fish & Richardson on

On December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit held an en banc hearing in In re Aqua Products. As noted earlier, one of the questions posed for en banc review had a distinctly administrative law tone. That question asked whether...more

Dentons

Supreme Court Affirms Cuozzo, Upholding PTAB's Claims Construction Standard and Non-Appealable Nature of Inter Partes Review

Dentons on

This article contains important information relating to recent developments in patent law and, as such, is intended for an audience that either currently owns a patent or is in the process of obtaining one. The Supreme...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Solidifying Claim Construction in Inter Partes Review – Cuozzo Allows Patent Office to Govern the Inter Partes Review Process

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 3369425 (June 20, 2016) upheld the Patent Office’s long-held policy of construing a patent claim according to its broadest...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Supreme Court Upholds the PTAB’s Status Quo in Cuozzo

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more

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

Supreme Court Maintains Status Quo on Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation Test and Non-Appealability of Institution Decisions

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

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, No. 15-4461, an appeal of an institution and cancellation decision in the first-ever petition for inter partes review...more

Foley Hoag LLP

Supreme Court Defers to the Patent Office on Institution and Management of Post-Grant Proceedings

Foley Hoag LLP on

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court handed a victory to the Patent Office, affirming its broad discretion in the institution and management of post-issuance proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Supreme Court Affirms Cuozzo – Leaving in Place BRI and Judicial Review Limitation for IPR Proceedings

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holdings on claim construction and the scope of judicial review in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding....more

K&L Gates LLP

Cuozzo Furthers the USPTO’s Authority in Managing Its Agency Proceedings

K&L Gates LLP on

In the much-anticipated United States Supreme Court decision this week, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court upheld two important aspects of practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). ...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Supreme Court Defers to Patent Office on IPR Procedure, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee (2016)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

In its first pronouncement regarding the post-grant reviewing proceedings established by the America Invents Act ("AIA"), the Supreme Court ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office's positions on two of the law's provisions...more

25 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide