Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Introduction
With the adoption of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 and the accompanying change from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system, one might be tempted to conclude that first-to-invent concepts like prior conception and reasonable diligence are no longer relevant. But despite the passage of more than a decade since the enactment of the AIA, a significant number of patents with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013 remain in existence and will continue to be litigated under pre-AIA rules. (See, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th ed., rev. January 2024) (MPEP) §2159.) See also, Colleen V. Chien et al., “The AIA at Ten-How Much Do the Pre-AIA Prior Art Rules Still Matter?,” 35 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1, 1 (2021) (reporting that approximately 90% of litigated patents fell under the pre-AIA system in 2020 versus 100% in 2013).
For such patents, patent owners may still be able to antedate or remove an asserted reference as prior art in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) proceeding by demonstrating an invention date prior to the effective date of the prior art or removing the prior art by demonstrating that the prior art described the inventor’s own work. See, MPEP §§715, 2132.01(I). Consequently, the legal standards and factual requirements for antedating and removing prior art will remain important for patent owners and petitioners alike to understand and consider, at least until the 20-year anniversary of the AIA’s enactment in 2033.
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
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.
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.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
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.