Patent Law Weblog
Category: Post-Grant Proceedings
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit recently reviewed yet another decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. UCB Pharma GmbH, and once again reviewed whether a failed petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding had standing to appeal…
-
By Nicole Grimm, George "Trey" Lyons, III, and Brett Scott — On January 3, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision in Insys Development Co., Inc. v. GW Pharma Ltd. (IPR2017-00503), a landmark inter partes review (IPR) decision involving a cannabis patent. Although the PTAB…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its 12th annual list of top patent stories. For 2018, we identified fifteen stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By David Boundy* — Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a request for briefing in Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, IPR2018-00914, paper no. 24 (PTAB Dec. 3, 2018) (see Revised Order). Proppant initiates a rulemaking to formulate new rules on joinder of parties and claims in PTAB…
-
AIA Post-grant Reviews Not Precluded by Assignor Estoppel By Kevin E. Noonan — On Friday, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., deciding that the Board had erred in certain of its determinations regarding Arista's inter partes review challenge to certain claims of Cisco's U.S. Patent No.…
-
By Josh Rich — In AIA post-grant proceedings — specifically, Post-Grant Review ("PGR"), Inter Partes Review ("IPR"), and Covered Business Method ("CBM") review — the patentee has the right to seek to amend the claims rather than fight over the issued claims. However, in 90% of the cases in which a motion to amend has…
-
By Josh Rich — On Friday, October 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, in order to answer the question whether the government can bring post-grant review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA. Specifically, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the government is…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Patent law has traditionally been considered to be fraught with traps for the unwary, which in practice just means that it is unwise to assume anything (see Carl S. Koening, "Clarifying Patent Terminology and Patent Concepts – An Introduction to Some Basic Concepts and Doctrine," 15 Cath. U. L. Rev.…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Luminara Worldwide, LLC appealed from three inter partes review (IPR) decisions, in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held unpatentable a total of 31 claims across Luminara's three patents. On appeal, Luminara challenged the Board's decisions as to one claim from each patent and asserted that the Board's application of…
Patent Docs 