Source: http://ipr-pgr.com/
Timestamp: 2014-10-21 02:06:36
Document Index: 508556819

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 122', '§ 122', '§ 102']

Inter Partes Review Post Grant Review
AIA Desk Book
Welcome to Volume 7 of our IPR-PGR Quarterly Report. Please contact us with any questions about these Patent Office procedures. We take special note of three interesting statistics this quarter. First, obtaining amended patent claims in these proceedings remains difficult. After 1 motion to amend was granted last quarter, this quarter saw a complete shutout. … View full post
Originally posted on January 8, 2013 on IP Law360. Inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) “trials” at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have the potential to be game-changers in the way patents are challenged in the future. After several attempts at creating USPTO-based proceedings that are efficient and effective, there is much in … View full post
We welcome the arrival of Inter Partes Review (IPR), as of September 16, 2012, and Post Grant Review (PGR) as of March 16, 2012. It is open for debate as to whether the America Invents Act (AIA) is true patent reform, but what is absolutely clear is that the AIA has changed patent practice forever. … View full post
Happy 2nd Birthday, Inter Partes Review – By the NumbersInter Partes Review and Post Grant Review Are Game-ChangersWelcome to Litigation Practice at the USPTO Oct
Later Priority Date for IPR-Challenged Patent Where No Written Description in Parent Categories: Initiating IPR Trial, Priority Date, Written Description
Tags: institution of trial, priority date, Section 112, written description
PTAB Disqualifies Art as Being Non-Analogous to Claimed Invention Categories: Denial of Grounds, Non-Analogous Art, Obviousness
Tags: Denial of Petition, inter partes review, obviousness
Infringement Contentions From Copending Litigation Not Allowed as Supplemental IPR Information Categories: Supplemental Evidence
Tags: evidence, inter partes review, supplemental evidence
PTAB Offers Guidance Regarding Discovery in Inter Partes Reviews Categories: Additional Discovery, Discovery, Routine Discovery
Tags: discovery, inter partes review, ipr, ptab
PTAB Getting Tough on Petitions Seeking to Circumvent Page Limit Categories: Incorporation by Reference, Insufficient Evidence, Page Limits, Petition
Tags: Denial of Petition, inter partes review, page limit
Board Considers Proof of Diligent Reduction to Practice Categories: Conception and Reduction to Practice, Priority Date
Tags: Conception, institution of trial, priority date, Reduction to Practice
Board Disagrees with Claim Construction of Prior Proceeding Before the PTO Categories: Claim Construction, Concurrent Proceedings
Tags: claim construction, inter partes review, reconsideration
Patent Office Propaganda? Categories: Statistics
Happy 2nd Birthday, Inter Partes Review – By the Numbers Categories: About, Harness Dickey, Slider, Statistics
Tags: inter partes review, ipr statistics, quarterly report
Provisional Application Not § 102(e) Prior Art in IPR Categories: Denial of Grounds
The PTAB taught a Petitioner a valuable lesson regarding the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in Sequenom Inc. v. Stanford Univ., IPR2014-00337, finding that a provisional patent application cannot be used as prior art in an inter partes review under that section. Pursuant to that determination, the Board denied the Petition.
The Petition had based all challenge grounds on a provisional application and argued that the challenged claims were unpatentable pursuant to § 102(e). The Board instructed, however, that only two types of documents may be relied upon under § 102(e) to show that claims are unpatentable: “(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), . . . or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Id. at 3.
As a provisional application is not “an application for patent, published under section 122(b)” because § 122(b) states expressly that “[a]n application shall not be published if that application is . . . (iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b) of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(2)(iii). Accordingly, a provisional patent application is not “an application for patent, published under section 122(b),”and therefore, does not qualify as prior art under § 102(e). Id. In light of the fact that every ground of unpatentability advanced by Petitioner relied on the provisional application, the Petition was denied. Id. at 5.
Tags: Denial of Petition, inter partes review
How to Use This Site	There may be no greater opportunity and true reform in the America Invents Act than the creation of "Patent Office Trials" via the Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review proceedings. As such, patent challengers are likely to move towards the use of these proceedings, and patent owners need to be on top of strategy and developments. Use this site as a resource that will provide you with articles (a) reporting on the IPR and PGR proceedings that are progressing through the Patent Office, (b) providing substantive information regarding the procedural underpinnings of these trials, and (c) reflecting on their many nuances.
Contact Us	314-726-7500
IPR-PGR@hdp.com Sign Up For Email Updates	Enter your email address:Delivered by FeedBurner
About Matt Cutler	The challenges and opportunities provided by the new Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review proceedings created by the America Invents Act present an exciting time for anyone facing a patent dispute - both patent owners and patent challengers. We have teams of Harness Dickey attorneys that are uniquely qualified to become leaders in these proceedings. Read More: Biography
Recent Posts	Later Priority Date for IPR-Challenged Patent Where No Written Description in Parent
Important Documents in IPR/PGRImplementation of Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review Proceedings
Connect via LinkedIn	Search
IPR-PGR.com Archive	Select Month
Administrative Estoppel (1)
All Elements Rule (2)
Explicit Teaching Required (1)
Inherency (8)
Multiple Alternatives (2)
Product-By-Process (2)
Claim Construction (61)
Claim Differentiation (1)
District Court Determination (5)
Federal Circuit Determination (1)
File History (3)
Importing Limitations from Specification (2)
Means Plus Function (10)
No Construction Needed (1)
Other Claims As Guide (3)
Specification As Guide (14)
Statements in Related Litigation (4)
Use of Prior Art (2)
Clerical Errors (2)
Conflict with District Court Order (2)
Covered Business Method Review (1)
Cumulative Grounds (6)
Additional Discovery (6)
Routine Discovery (2)
Evidentiary Challenges (3)
Insufficient Support (2)
Federal Circuit Decisions (2)
Harness Dickey (7)
Initial Conference Call (1)
Level of Ordinary Skill (2)
Motion to Amend (7)
Motion to Exclude (2)
Obviousness (32)
Chemical Cases (3)
Non-Analogous Art (2)
Prima Facie Case (3)
Reason to Combine (5)
Secondary Considerations (5)
Teaching Away (7)
Page Limits (3)
Particularity of Grounds (6)
Patent Owner Preliminary Response (9)
Post Grant Review (2)
Previously Considered Arguments (15)
Printed Publication (3)
Conception and Reduction to Practice (5)
Privity (6)
PTAB Orders (91)
Concurrent Proceedings (8)
Denial of Grounds (10)
Expunging Papers (1)
Initiating IPR Trial (55)
New Testimony in Preliminary Response (1)
Real Party-In-Interest (5)
Scope of Proceedings (1)
Stay of inter partes review (1)
Waive Page Limit (1)
Statutory Bar (4)
Stay of Litigation (1)
Supplemental Evidence (7)
Timeline of Events in an IPR and PGR	Copyright