Gilbert Hyatt appealed the Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of all 117 claims of his patent application titled “Improved Memory Architecture Having a Multiple Buffer Output Arrangement” to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) under ' 134(a).
An Analysis of Kappos v. Hyatt
Although the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Kappos v. Hyatt</i> addressed the Patent Act specifically, the decision may have implications for cases brought in district courts to challenge decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The <i>Kappos</i> decision may also encourage defendants to continue pushing against the "clear and convincing evidence" standard for obviousness challenges based on prior art not considered by the PTO during examination.
By
John M. Cone And Megan M. O'LaughlinThis premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
