On October 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a change in the claim construction standard used for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and covered business method (CBM) review.  For these proceedings, the claim construction standard will be changed from the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard to the standard

The PTAB has broad discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Several are aware that the PTAB commonly exercises its discretion to deny “follow-on” petitions that seek to challenge the validity of a patent that has

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

Based on recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”) decisions, the best practice to establish an academic thesis as a printed publication in an IPR proceeding is to demonstrate that it has been indexed by subject matter and then corroborate the index date by independent evidence, or demonstrate that another publication can

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rarely grants motions for additional discovery filed by a party in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding. Typically, a party’s motion will be denied for failing to satisfy the burden under the established factors. The PTAB has also denied motions for additional discovery where the party failed to

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register[1], announcing its plans to change the claim construction standard used in America Invents Act (“AIA”) reviews to the standard applied in the federal district courts and International Trade Commission (“ITC”) proceedings. Under

Since the Federal Circuit’s October 5, 2017 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi[1] overruling the so-called “newly characterized antigen” test for written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, patent challengers in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields have gained powerful tools for attacking antibody claims for lack of adequate written description.  More broadly, patent challengers are