Page 5 - Trial Practice Guide News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Monday, April 5, 2021 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) that determines disputes over the issuance, reissuance, and cancellation of patent claims. The PTAB has become well known to patent litigants since the implementation in 2012 of new proceedings, including  Inter Partes Review (IPR), for challenging the patentability of issued patent claims. The Design and Use of IPRs IPRs were designed to be an alternative to litigation and are initiated with an IPR petition, which must be filed with the PTAB w...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) designated new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) precedents protecting patent owners from multiple inter partes review (IPR) challenges. The Board decisions included one that concerned the identification of a real party in interest (RPI) and when multiple petitions challenging the same patent are not permitted. In RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, 1 the Board held that the petitioner, RPX, was time-barred because its client Salesforce was an unnamed RPI that wa...

Introduction The authors have recently proposed alternative analyses for the discretionary denial of IPR and PGR petitions involved in parallel district court litigation, as well as for the discretionary denial of serial petitions filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB is also currently at a crossroads with yet a third similar but distinct issue—the discretionary denial of parallel petitions filed before the PTAB. “Serial petitions” refer to multiple successive petitions challenging a particular patent that are filed by the same or different petitioners, ...

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: On December 8th, the PTAB published a Final Rule, formalizing a number of PTAB practices dictated by case law and described in the current Trial Practice Guide.  The one substantive change of note is the removal to deference to the Petitioner’s Expert’s declaration at the Institution Decision, where current 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) is adjusted from: The Board’s decision will take into account a patent owner  preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence, but a genuine issue of mat...