4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Behaving Badly: OpenSky v. VLSI and Sanctions at the PTAB — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Scott McKeown Discusses PTAB Trends and Growth of Wolf Greenfield’s Washington, DC Office
Wolf Greenfield Attorneys Preview What’s Ahead in 2024
USPTO Director Review — Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
5 Key Takeaways | PTAB Update: The Waning Impact of Fintiv on Discretionary Denials
3 Key Takeaways | Third party Prior Art Submissions at USPTO
Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: What to Expect? - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post Grant Radio: Episode #16: Kevin McNish, McNish PLLC
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #15: Nick Tsui, Alston & Bird
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #14: Tom Rozylowicz
Fish Post-Grant Radio: Episode #13: Rick Bisenius
JONES DAY TALKS®: Supreme Court Rules on Constitutionality of Administrative Patent Judges
Five Impactful USPTO Procedural Developments for Patent Practitioners
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
[IP Hot Topics Podcast] Innovation Conversations: Andrei Iancu
Fallout from the Fintiv Precedential Decision
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
On April 16, 2024, the PTAB proposed new rules (“proposed rules”) governing the Director Review process, which would remain consistent with the Interim review process currently in place, and codify those procedures....more
As of July 24, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) revised the interim Director Review process and replaced the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) with the Appeals Review Panel process, which will review...more
On June 22, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced new interim guidance regarding discretionary denials of patent challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) based on parallel litigation. The...more
In Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, the Federal Circuit in a split decision concluded that Mobility Workx, LLC’s constitutional challenges to structure and funding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are...more
MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC Before Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Fee-funded structure of AIA review proceedings does not violate due process....more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to extend the Motion to Amend (MTA) pilot program. This program provides additional options for a patent owner...more
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Appeal Nos. 2020-1475, -1605 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2021)- In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal from the International Trade...more
A patent interference is an inter partes proceeding to determine which party was the first to invent commonly claimed subject matter. An interference is also a viable procedure for challenging the validity of an issued patent...more
A PGR is a trial proceeding conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to determine the patentability of one or more claims of a patent that issued from an application filed after March 15, 2013. ...more
Abbreviated new drug (ANDA) applicant Amneal petitioned for an inter partes review (IPR) of Almirall’s patent listed in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Orange Book for a prescription drug to treat acne. Almirall...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
We surveyed inter partes review proceedings instituted in the year following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, and identified five takeaways regarding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's...more
Appellants in New Vision Gaming & Development v. SC Gaming, Inc. f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. and Mobility Workx, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC challenge the constitutionality of the administrative patent judge (APJ) incentive...more
America Invents Act Reviews, or "AIA Reviews" are administrative proceedings which can be used to seek the invalidity of a U.S. Patent. After their creation in 2011, AIA reviews have become an important component of patent...more
On March 27, President Donald Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The CARES Act temporarily expands the authority of the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark...more
Updated April 1, 2020 We previously reported on USPTO COVID-19 related information, including a prior statement that the USPTO was unable to change deadlines. The USPTO has now obtained statutory authority to modify...more
Continuing explication of the motions submitted on January 9th to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Interference No. 106155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and...more
The only real answers we are hearing from the patent community is that no one knows what to do or what might happen next --- post Arthrex. As a quick reminder – the Federal Circuit ruled (1) the current PTAB judges were...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (December 11, 2019) - Yesterday, the Supreme Court overruled a recent interpretation of 35 USC §145 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark...more
In Game and Tech Co. (“GAT”) v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd, the Federal Circuit shed some light on what qualifies as “service” for purposes of triggering the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Court also clarified the role that the...more
The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution1 provides that “principal officers” of the United States must be appointed by the President upon the advice and consent of the Senate. “Inferior officers,” on the other hand,...more
On October 31, 2019, a Federal Circuit panel issued Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., holding that administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were unconstitutionally-appointed...more
Supplemental Examination was born out of fixing potential inequitable conduct issues before they are raised in a court proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 257(a); 27 CFR § 1.601; M.P.E.P. § 2800. The stated goal is to improve patent...more