Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Columns & Departments
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Does Not Invalidate Section 156 Patent Term Extension <br>Federal Circuit Holds Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in IPR Context<br>Federal Circuit Reverses District Court Holding of Patent Ineligibility of Computer Security Patent
Features
How, if at all, can a non-injured party that challenges a patent before the PTAB and loses may then demonstrate Article III standing to appeal to the federal courts from the PTAB's decision upholding the patent's validity.
Features
Beginning on Nov. 13, 2018, the USPTO will cease to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for newly-filed IPR, PGR, and CBM trials under the America Invents Act (AIA). Instead, the USPTO will begin "using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action …."
Columns & Departments
Obviousness Determination Can Be Different for Apparatus and Method Claims<br>Petitioner “Bears the Burden” On Demonstrating Real Parties in Interest
Features
The recent <i>In Re Rembrandt Technologies</i> decision is a reminder of both the potential consequence of a patent holder's disingenuous assertion of unintentionality and the challenges that defendants face when raising the improper filing of a petition to revive a lapsed patent as a defense.
Features
A look at several unique trademark cases where the plaintiff fashion brand proactively sought to invalidate a competitor's non-traditional trademarks, an action which reflects a push back on increasingly aggressive litigation tactics by fashion brands seeking to blur the lines between a non-protectable fashion trend and a protectable trademark.
Features
The USPTO announced revisions to PTAB procedures that formalize Andrei Iancu's control over the 250 administrative patent judges and their policy-making, while making that control more transparent.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit: IPR Petitioner Always Retains Burden of Establishing Timeliness<br>Federal Circuit: Framework for 'Overlapping Cases' Applies in IPR
Features
<b><i>NantKwest v Iancu</b></i><p>The Federal Circuit sitting <i>en banc</i> reversed its own prior ruling and held that “all expenses of the proceeding” does not include attorneys' fees.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit Remands for Further Proceedings to Determine Whether RPX's Petitions for IPR Were Time Barred For Failing to Identify Its Client As a 'Real Party in Interest'<br>Federal Circuit Holds that Common Law Tribal Sovereign Immunity Cannot Shield a Patent in IPR Proceedings,br>Federal Circuit Holds that an Unsuccessful IPR Petitioner Must Show 'Concrete Plans' for Future Potentially-Infringing Activity in Order to Demonstrate Article III Standing to Appeal PTAB's IPR Decision