Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The America Invents Act (AIA)'established inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the United States Patent Office (USPTO). Under this new regime, any person other than the patent owner is able to challenge the validity of a patent with a patent office trial. In a growing number of cases, the validity of a patent is determined at the USPTO prior to a district court dispute on infringement. The cost and time benefits of an IPR has encouraged hundreds of Petitioners to partake in these new proceedings.
One strategy that has emerged to improve a Petitioner's chances of invalidating a patent at the USPTO is for the same Petitioner to file more than one IPR for a single patent.
To date, many patents have been subject to multiple IPR proceedings, and some patents have even been subject to four IPR petitions by the same Petitioner. Under 35 U.S.C. '315 (d), the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (the Board), which presides over patent trials, has the authority to stay, transfer, consolidate or terminate an IPR proceeding if another proceeding involving the same patent is before the Board. The statute provides the Board with several options and the Board has not yet established a bright line rule for handling multiple petition proceedings. When deciding whether to file multiple IPRs for a single patent, Petitioners should make such decisions strategically and consider the different possible outcomes.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.