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 Andrew Williams — On January 13, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") denied institution of four covered business method ("CBM") patent review petitions filed by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Par"), Roxane Laboratories, Inc. ("Roxane"), and Amneal Pharmaceutical, LLC ("Amneal") (together, "petitioners") against patents owned by Jazz Pharmaceutical, Inc. All of these…
-
By Andrew Williams — For only the second time, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB" or "Board") granted a motion to amend claims. However, even though these two current motions were only granted-in-part, the fact that some claim amendments were accepted while others were denied can shed even more light on the Board's requirement…
-
By Donald Zuhn — After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its eighth annual list of top patent stories. For 2014, we identified eighteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Andrew Williams — The pharmaceutical industry has been closing watching the proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") to see if inter partes review ("IPR") will be a viable option for generic drug companies seeking to challenge Orange-Book-listed patents. On December 9, 2014, the PTAB released two sets of decisions…
-
By Andrew Williams — Just what does it take to amend your claims during an IPR proceeding before the PTAB? Of course, the America Invents Act ("AIA") specifically provides that Patent Owners may file one motion to amend the claims. AIA, § 316(d)(1). However, most people in the patent community are well aware that the…
-
By Andrew Williams — The Federal Circuit made it clear earlier today that district courts should freely grant stays in view of Covered Business Method ("CBM") patent reviews instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). In Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., the Court reversed and remanded a United States District Court…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last week, the Federal Circuit heard the first oral argument for the first appeal of an inter partes review ("IPR") final written decision for the first IPR ever filed (IPR2012-00001). The IPR case caption was Garmin USA, Inc. (Petitioner) v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC (Patent Owner), but the appeal was fashioned…
-
By Andrew Williams — One of the more controversial rules concerning PTAB trials promulgated by the USPTO in the wake of the America Invents Act was the adoption of the "broadest reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") claim construction standard for proceedings before the Board. It was no surprise, therefore, that when the Patent Office requested feedback on…
-
By Michael Borella — As the fallout of the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision propagates through the USPTO and lower courts, many patent applications and patents directed to business methods are being rejected or struck down for failing to meet the patentable subject matter requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The USPTO's…
-
By Andrew Williams — As we have been reporting, the U.S. Patent Office has requested comments on the trial proceedings under the America Invents Act. Out of the 17 issues outlined, the Office highlighted two for which it would especially appreciate public feedback: (1) the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") standard for claim…
Patent Docs 