The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or the “Office”) recently proposed new AIA trial procedures aimed at boosting the success rate of patent owner motions to amend.[1]  The new procedures, if made effective, would allow patent owners to preview the Board’s analysis of a motion to amend and to then revise their

The PTAB will soon implement a change in its claim construction standard in post-issuance reviews, moving from the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) standard to the standard articulated in the Federal Circuit’s opinion, Phillips v. AWH Corp.[1]  We previously covered this on our blog here. The effects of the change may be significant in

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

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

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important decisions relating to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, U.S., No. 16-712, 4/24/2018

In Oil States, the Supreme Court ruled

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