Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Retired Judges File Amicus Brief in Support of Judge Newman
- Hikma v. Amarin at the Supreme Court: The Parties’ Opening Briefs
- Teva Pharmaceuticals International v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- USPTO Extends Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!)
- USPTO Announces That It Has Turned the Corner on Unexamined Application Backlog
about
Category: Patent Trial and Appeal Board
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 14th, Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier; collectively, "CVC") filed its Substantive Motion No. 1 to be awarded priority benefit to their earlier priority applications: USSN 61/652,086, filed May 25, 2012 (P1); USSN 61/716,256, filed October 19, 2012 (P2); USSN…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Today, in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two final written decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,562,999 to be nonobvious. The '999 patent, which is directed to formulations…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Part of every interference are a variety of housekeeping matters which, while not dispositive, are important to recognize for their effects (or potential effects) on the proceedings. Some are simple matters: for example, on October 28th, the Board granted the Broad's request for authorization to file a Reply to CVC's…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 14th, Senior Party the Broad Institute (joined by Harvard University and MIT) filed several authorized motions in Interference No. 106,115, including Substantive Motion No. 2 and No. 3, against Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier; collectively, "CVC." In its Motion…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 14th, Senior Party the Broad Institute (joined by Harvard University and MIT) filed several authorized motions, including Substantive Motion No. 3 (to designate claims as not corresponding to the count), against Junior Party the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier; collectively, "CVC." In…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On October 18th, Junior Party (the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Vienna; and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") filed its authorized opposition to Substantive Motion No. 1 from Senior Party the Broad Institute (and its partners as Senior Party, Harvard University and MIT), which asked for judgment in Interference…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan and James L. Lovsin — Today in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit held that the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has appointed administrative patent judges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Art.…
-
Functional Language in Device Claim Ignored for Patentability Purposes By Joseph Herndon — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently issued a decision indicating that certain claims of a patent directed to the popular PopSockets are invalid. In Quest USA Corp. (Petitioner) v. PopSockets LLC (Patent Owner) (Case IPR2018-00497), the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Any party who has ever come before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) quickly realizes the extent to which the Board enforces procedural niceties. This tendency sometimes leads to logically incongruous results; for example, in its St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan decision, the…
-
By Joshua Rich — When post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act began, the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") treated motions to amend in those proceedings like most other motions: the movant, here the patentee, bore the burden of production of evidence and the burden of persuasion on the issue of patentability of…
Patent Docs 