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
Takeaways: - Patent owner requested reexaminations are not an admission of claim unpatentability. - Patent owners can and should control the reexamination request narrative. Patent owners must consider the pros and...more
A significant procedure for patent owners, Supplemental Examination, was established in the 2012 America Invents Act when Congress determined there should be a proceeding to turn events that in the past could lead to...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
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
By Dave Maiorana By now, most PTAB practitioners are familiar with 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which gives the Board the authority to deny institution of a post-grant proceeding because the same or substantially the same prior art or...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of an IPR petition that presented the same prior art before the Patent Office in a pending reexamination. Fox Factory, Inc....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