Article III standing has become a contested and often dispositive issue in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  For example, as we reported previously, the Federal Circuit has dismissed an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s appeal where the petitioner-appellant lost standing by abandoning development of its potentially infringing product.[1]  We also

The United States government is currently in a partial shutdown due to a lapse in appropriated funding for a portion of the federal government.  The partial shutdown began on December 22, 2018, and is currently in its fifth week.  Two government organizations affected by the shutdown are (i) the Department of Commerce, which includes the

The USPTO first published its AIA Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) in August 2012.[1] The TPG provides practitioners with guidance on typical procedures and times for taking action in AIA trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, covered business method reviews, and derivation proceedings.  The TPG

Post-grant review (PGR) is the least common post-issuance trial proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Only 1% of petitions filed for post-issuance trial proceedings since the institution of the America Invents Act have been for PGRs, while 92% and 7% have been for inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM)

Given the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) reluctance to grant motions to amend claims during AIA post-grant proceedings, patent owners faced with post-grant challenges have attempted to circumvent the challenge of amending claims by filing reissue applications of challenged patents.  By doing so, the patent owner attempts to create two parallel proceedings