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 — Earlier this month, on March 6, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") issued three related inter partes review opinions, marking the first set of opinions related to either the Biotech or Pharmaceutical industry. The cases were IPR2012-00006, IPR2012-00007, and IPR2013-00011, and the parties were Illumina, Inc. (Petitioner) and The Trustees of Columbia…
-
By Andrew Williams — Today, March 16, 2014, marks the eighteen-month anniversary of the inter partes review ("IPR") system of challenging issued patents at the Patent Office. We thought that this would be an appropriate time to look back at the last year and a half and reflect on the system thus far. In that…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), a creation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that replaced the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) overruled the Reexamination Unit's decision that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,777,231 were invalid for failing to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements…
-
By Andrew Williams — Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") issued the first inter partes review opinion in case IPR2012-00001, Garmin USA, Inc. (Petitioner) v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC (Patent Owner). In what is being considered good news for parties wishing to challenge the validity of patents at the Office,…
-
By Michael Borella — In an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has struck down claims directed to a computer-implemented business method as failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applying the Supreme Court's test of Mayo v. Prometheus, and…
Patent Docs 