On Monday, February 12, 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) anticipation rejections and vacated and remanded the obviousness rejections against U.S. Patent Application No. 12/906,222 (“the ’222 application”), an application directed to a valve assembly for draining contaminants, condensation, and other fluids that adversely affect the efficiency and

On Friday, January 19, 2018, in a Federal Register notice, the USPTO identified four regulations that it is proposing to abolish.[1] The proposals comply with Executive Order 13777, signed by President Trump in February of 2017, which require federal agencies to review all existing regulations and identify those that should be repealed, replaced, or

On November 27, 2017, in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court will hold oral argument to determine the constitutionality of the inter partes review (“IPR”) process implemented by the America Invents Act.  Clearly, this case has the potential to drastically alter the patent litigation landscape if IPR

  • New Privilege Rule Protects Communications with Foreign Jurisdiction Patent Practitioners From Discovery in PTAB Proceedings.
  • No Reciprocity From Foreign Jurisdiction is Required.

Under a new rule set to take effect on December 7, 2017, communications between patent practitioners authorized to practice patent matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under 37 C.F.R.

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

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) enjoys a wide range of discretion on a number of issues.  For instance, the PTAB has interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) as providing the Director with the discretion to institute or not, regardless of whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on at least