Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
In ZyXEL, the petitioner unexpectedly received a second chance to argue against the patentability of the patentee’s substitute claims, even though the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) had already found those claims...more
Quantum computing, a field that harnesses quantum physical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to perform complex computational tasks, is an emerging technology area. The uncertainties regarding the feasibility...more
The Federal Circuit has affirmed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that upheld some claims of a patent owned by Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. (PGI) and invalidated other claims. Pacific...more
When Dynamic Drinkware was decided in 2015, commentators debated whether differences in the language of the American Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 USC § 102 would shield AIA patents from its restrictions. Now, U.S. Patent...more
The Federal Circuit has held that the claims of a “SNALP” patent were inherently anticipated by prior art. In Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTX, Inc., Arbutus appealed a decision in an inter partes proceeding by the Patent...more
We are committed to providing insightful commentary on IP developments from around the world to our Japanese clients. In light of that effort, we are continuing our free monthly webinar series, McDermott IP Focus. During...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) is seeking public input and guidance on proposed initiatives directed at bolstering the robustness and reliability of patents. The request for comments was spurred in part by US...more
A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Commissioner, on assuming the role of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, can constitutionally evaluate the rehearing of...more
An ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recently issued an initial determination holding that PGR estoppel prevented GMG Products LLC (Respondent) from raising two prior-art products in the ITC....more
This blog has previously discussed PTAB’s exercise of discretion under Section 325(d). Sometimes the PTAB has invoked Section 325(d) to deny institution; sometimes it has declined to apply Section 325(d) and instituted inter...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) ruling, based on a written description analysis, that certain claims were invalid as anticipated by an earlier priority...more
Lest we forget, there are two other interferences proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, one of which (Interference No. 106,127) names ToolGen as Senior Party and as Junior Party the University of...more
Having heard oral argument at a hearing held on Monday, May 18th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently entered its decision on these motions in Interference No 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that cancellation of a patent in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not a taking and does not grant the patentee any compensable claim against the United...more
A petition for inter partes review (IPR) has been denied because the petitioner failed to rebut the patent owner’s claim of priority raised in its preliminary response. In denying institution, the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
March 23rd was the deadline for the parties in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) recently considered whether a dispute over a patent’s priority date justified filing two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the same claims. The...more
On remand from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB ruled that a patentee’s certificate of correction—issued after the Board invalidated the claims in a final written decision—could not be applied retroactively. After the IPR...more
A panel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently held that a certificate of correction fixing an error in a patent’s claim of priority did not apply retroactively in light of an already issued final written...more
Addressing limitations on the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that the PTAB erred in rejecting a patent owner’s request to file a request for a...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has published its new Final Rule on the standard of review used in construing challenged patent claims in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). ...more
In Natural Alternatives Intl. Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the patent at issue was not entitled to its earliest claimed priority date because...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Summary: Removing the priority claim of one application in a chain can affect the ability of pending and...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more