Third Party Observation in Patent Prosecution in China
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Cases Updated in CNIPA Guidelines - Eligibility & Inventiveness for AI & Business Method Applications
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
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
On March 6, the USPTO announced a new Green Energy Category of its Patents for Humanity Program. Patents for Humanity is an awards competition that recognizes innovators who use technology to meet global humanitarian...more
USPTO News - ..On October 19, 2022 the USPTO issued a report titled “Where are U.S. women patentees? Assessing three decades of growth” examining trends in women’s patenting in the U.S. from 1990-2019. ..Director...more
Expert Testimony Alone Insufficient to Show Examiner's Material Error in Considering Prior Art - In Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-fee System GmbH, IPR2021-01222, Paper 9, at 25 (PTAB Jan. 18, 2022), the Board denied...more
As 2021 comes to a close, Big Molecule Watch reviews the top five biosimilar regulatory developments of the year... President Biden Signs Orange Book Transparency Act - In January, we reported that President Biden...more
On February 22, 2021, the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether collateral estoppel (i.e., issue preclusion) was applicable in inter partes reexamination proceedings. The case is SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor Corp.,...more
On August 18, 2020, the USPTO issued guidance regarding the reliance on Applicant Admitted prior art (AAPA). Under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), IPRs may be instituted only “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed...more
As was previously noted, the PTAB recently designated one decision as precedential and four as informative concerning the necessary showing for proving up a reference as printed publication prior art. Here is an in depth...more
On March 24, the USPTO issued two precedential decisions and one informative decision that clarify the circumstances under which the PTAB will utilize its discretion to deny IPR institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). This...more
35 U.S.C. § 325(d) gives the PTAB discretion to deny a petition for inter partes review when the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously before the Office – including during original examination,...more
A recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suggests that petitioners who unsuccessfully challenge patents in an inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cannot rely on...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
Late last week, the Federal Circuit issued Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC and Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota v. LSI Corp. These two precedential decisions bring further clarity to who is...more
Recently, the PTO issued a Notice providing guidance on how the Board treats reissue and reexamination proceedings while an AIA trial on the same patent is co-pending. The guidance comes in response to public comments and...more
Associate Tom Cowan presented "Patent Basics for the Aerospace Industry," at the Space Foundation Space Commerce Workshop at the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California. As the keynote speaker for the event, Tom...more
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
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the PTAB has discretion regarding whether to institute a covered business method review if the arguments presented in the petition are the same, or substantially the same, as those previously...more
In E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had upheld Synvina’s chemical process patent against an obviousness challenge...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) provided yet another arrow in the patent owner’s quiver for defending against institution of IPRs. In NHK International Corp. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,...more
Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1452 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) - In these two, published, precedential orders...more
Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2016-1249 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2018) - In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) obviousness determination following...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Bryson, and Moore. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Prosecution disclaimer occurred when an applicant explained why claims were amended and the Examiner...more
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) - In Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the Federal Circuit reviewed the District Court’s summary judgment finding that certain claims of a patent were invalid as...more
A recent written decision by the PTAB in connection with an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is a reminder to patent prosecutors to carefully consider the possible construction of claim terms in a continuation or...more
This is the second of a three-part series discussing developments around Section 325(d). Part one appeared in our October 2017 newsletter and part three will appear in our December 2017 newsletter....more