Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Swearing Behind: Overcoming Asserted Prior Art in PTAB Proceedings, Part 2
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
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, 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, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th ed., rev. January 2024) (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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance 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 Article 8 Opt In
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.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?