by Matthew Johnson | Mar 27, 2018 | Amendment Practice, PTAB Trial Basics
By: Josh Nightingale and Matthew Johnson In its en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit addressed the question of who bears the burden of proving that claims amended in IPR proceedings are or are not patentable. The decision, issued on...
by Matthew Johnson | Mar 13, 2018 | PTAB Trial Basics
By: Matt Johnson The PTAB rules state that “[t]he petition and supporting evidence must be served on the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the subject patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a). Prompt service is important in IPRs because the Preliminary...
by Matthew Johnson | Mar 8, 2018 | Other News
thisBy: Alex Chung and Matt Johnson In an appeal from final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings where Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) challenged two patents owned by Paice LLC (“Paice”), the Federal...
by Matthew Johnson | Jan 22, 2018 | PTAB News, PTAB Trial Basics
By Matt Johnson In September 2017, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe moved to dismiss six instituted trials on petitions filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. Those petitions challenged six patents that, at the time the petitions were filed, belonged to Allergan, Inc. The...
by Matthew Johnson | Jan 16, 2018 | PTAB News, Time Limits, Trial Institution
By Rich Graham and Matt Johnson On January 10, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions weighing on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as informative: Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2017) (AIA § 315(b), insufficient funds at filing) Amneal...
