#ipr

[ follow ]
#ptab
fromPatently-O
8 months ago
Law

PTAB's New "Settled Expectations" Doctrine

The 'settled expectations' doctrine prioritizes patent age as a key factor in denying IPR institution.
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
1 month ago

CAFC Partially Affirms PTAB Unpatentability Decision for Samsung but Vacates on Unchallenged Claims

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,542 is titled "Automatic Sound Pass-Through Method and System for Earphones" and was challenged by Samsung via inter partes review (IPR) after ST1 sued Samsung for infringement. Samsung argued that claims 1-10 and 13- 20 of the patent were invalid due to obviousness based on three prior art references: Rosenberg, Ichimura and Visser. The PTAB ultimately found all of the challenged claims obvious over combinations of the prior art, but also found unchallenged claims 11 and 12 unpatentable without explanation.
Intellectual property law
fromIPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
2 months ago

Squires Issues Precedential Decision Holding Parallel Petitions on Same Patent Claims Should Be Rare

The Board's Trial Practice Guide explains that 'one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations' and 'multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.'
Intellectual property law
#uspto
fromPatently-O
4 months ago
Intellectual property law

Rulemaking as Backdoor Reform: Can the USPTO Bar Whole Classes of IPR Petitions?

fromPatently-O
4 months ago
Intellectual property law

Rulemaking as Backdoor Reform: Can the USPTO Bar Whole Classes of IPR Petitions?

#patent-law
fromPatently-O
9 months ago
Intellectual property law

Federal Circuit Dismisses Patent Owner's Appeal of Favorable IPR Decision for Lack of Standing

fromPatently-O
9 months ago
Intellectual property law

Federal Circuit Dismisses Patent Owner's Appeal of Favorable IPR Decision for Lack of Standing

fromGlobal IP & Technology Law Blog
10 months ago

Call It Out When You Think the Examiner Has Overlooked Prior Art

In the context of 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that the prior art was not adequately considered by the PTO.
Intellectual property law
[ Load more ]