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)

In an effort to combat pharmaceutical patent holders, several companies are now filing petitions for post-grant review on the theory that the claims are unpatentable for lacking sufficient written description and enablement. Although the number of post-grant review proceedings remains fairly small in comparison to inter-partes review proceedings, the recent increase in filings by generic

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communication Co. LP, No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that certain claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 due to the phrase “processing system.”  Id. at 3.  The majority did so in a rather unique way,

The America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 ushered in a new era for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, introducing 3 new post-grant administrative proceedings that are conducted before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and appealable to the Federal Circuit.  The proceedings introduced by the AIA include the inter partes