Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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."
To support the decision, the memorandum stated that the change were made at least partially because "the office's claim construction standard in AIA post-grant proceedings now aligns with that used by courts in a civil action, and … indefinite questions are generally considered as part of the claim construction process." The change was implemented with goals to "lead to greater uniformity and predictability, improve the integrity of the patent system, and help increase judicial efficiency."
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
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.