On October 18, 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) posted two notices on Regulations.gov seeking public input on the requirements to practice before the USPTO and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The goal is to expand admission criteria so “more Americans, including those from traditionally under-represented and under-resourced communities, can participate
In Everstar Merch. Co. v. Willis Elec. Co., No. 2021-1882, 2022 WL 1089909 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2022), the Federal Circuit provided guidance to distinguish between raising a new argument and elaborating on previously raised arguments in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Here it was decided that a minor point
Last month, in January 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a memorandum (the “January 2021 Memorandum”) clarifying how it will analyze claims for indefiniteness in AIA post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), namely patented claims in PGRs and CBMs and proposed substitute claims in IPRs. Prior to
On May 27, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proposed amendments to its rules governing post-grant proceedings, addressing three topics. First, petitions for post-grant proceedings would require institution of all claims or denial of the petition. Second, patent owners would be permitted to file sur-replies to principal briefs. Third, the rules would eliminate
On October 1, 2019, in Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Appeals 2018-1151, -1153 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2019), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) abused its discretion by requiring Honeywell Int’l Inc. (“Honeywell”) to show that the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 255 were met before
On October 22, 2019, the USPTO published a Federal Register notice proposing changes to the rules of practice for inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), and covered business method patents (“CBM”) (collectively “post-grant trial”) proceedings regarding burdens of persuasion for motions to amend and the patentability of substitute claims.[1]
Specifically, the Federal Register
The Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling today in Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), holding that the United States Government is not a “person” eligible to petition for covered-business-method (“CBM”) review, inter partes review (“IPR”), or post-grant review (“PGR”) America Invents Act (“AIA”) proceedings before the
On April 16, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB” or “the Board”) designated three orders as precedential related to the issue of the incomplete disclosure of “real parties-in-interest” (“RPIs”) at the time of the filing of petitions for post-grant proceedings. These three relatively recent orders—all issued since January 2019—present a range of
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
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