Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
PTAB to Follow Nautilus Standard of Definiteness
On Jan. 6, 2021, Director Andrei Iancu issued a memorandum on behalf of the United States Patent and Trademark Office requiring application of the same standard in matters under the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) jurisdiction that is used by federal courts in determining definiteness under 35 U.S.C. §112. Under this standard, articulated in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), a claim challenged for indefiniteness is unpatentable if the claim read in light of the specification and prosecution history "fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty", one of ordinary skill in the art of the invention's scope. Previously, the PTAB used the standard articulated in In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where a claim was indefinite when "it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."
The memorandum cites the PTAB's confusion as to whether Nautilus or Packard applies in post-grant proceedings. The memorandum cited BASF Corp., v. Ingevity South Carolina, LLC, PGR2020-00037 (PTAB Sept. 10, 2020), which cites both approaches and notes that the Federal Circuit declined previously to decide which one applies to the Post Grant Review process, and Dong Guan Leafy Windoware Co. Ltd., v. Anli Spring Co., PGR2020-00001 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2020), where the PTAB noted that the issue of which standard applies remained an "open issue."
This 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 ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.