Source: http://ipr-pgr.com/tag/post-grant-review/
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 21:08:26
Document Index: 753916023

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42']

Tag: post grant review	Legislative Update – STRONG Patents Act Takes Aim at IPR and PGR	With the new Congress firmly seated and various legislative efforts gaining momentum, another effort to reform patent system is taking its share of the spotlight. In early February, the House of Representatives took the first step with Rep. Bob Goodlatte re-introducing the Innovation Act, the identical patent-reform legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House in 2013.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on March 4, 2015March 4, 2015Categories LegislationTags inter partes review, post grant review, Reexamination	Patent Public Advisory Committee 2014 Annual Report	The Patent Public Advisory Committee issued its Annual Report regarding fiscal year 2014. The PPAC Report contains a number of interesting points, but our review, of course, will focus on the PTAB and post grant proceedings. The PPAC’s review of post grant proceedings started off with a review of numerous key statistics, including:
Author Matt CutlerPosted on December 1, 2014Categories About, StatisticsTags america invents act, inter partes review, post grant review	Second Petition Seeking Post Grant Review is Filed	Finally, the “PGR” portion of this site is starting to gain some momentum as Accord Healthcare brought the second ever Post Grant Review Petition. Accord Healthcare, Inc. v. Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al., IPR2014-00010. Accord challenges the validity of the patent-in-suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (lack of written description and enablement) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the inventors regard as the invention).
Author Matt CutlerPosted on August 12, 2014Categories Post Grant ReviewTags post grant review	6 Reasons Inter Partes Review Was Popular in 2013	Originally Published in IP Law360
Author Matt CutlerPosted on December 18, 2013Categories About, StatisticsTags america invents act, inter partes review, post grant review	GAO Report: Looking for the Real Troll	We now are able to share a full version of our article “GAO Report: Looking for the Real Troll” that published in Intellectual Property Magazine earlier this month. You might be surprised by the conclusions rendered by the General Accounting Office in its Report on Non-Practicing Entities. To read the article, click HERE.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on November 20, 2013November 20, 2013Categories AboutTags inter partes review, post grant review	GAO Report: Looking for the Real Troll	Below is the introduction to my article, entitled “GAO Report: Looking for the Real Troll,” that published in Intellectual Property Magazine on October 29, 2013. The full article can be found HERE
Author Matt CutlerPosted on November 6, 2013November 6, 2013Categories AboutTags inter partes review, post grant review	6 Months of Inter Partes Review – By the Numbers	Welcome to the inaugural issue of Harness Dickey’s Report on Litigation Practice Before the United States Patent Office. Our periodic Report provides insight on some of the over 100 characteristics of Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review proceedings that we track to identify trends and strategies for our clients.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on April 11, 2013July 3, 2013Categories About, America Invents Act, StatisticsTags america invents act, inter partes review, post grant review, statistics	PTAB Handles First Inter Partes Review “Initial Conference Call”	On Tuesday, January 22, 2013, the PTAB held its first “Initial Conference Call” in an inter partes review, in the case of Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2012-00026 (Harness Dickey represents the Patent Owner, Proxyconn, in this matter). The format of the call was very similar to a Rule 16 Conference before a federal district court judge. At the outset of the call, the Board clarified certain filings that had occurred in the case, and then proceeded to address the expected formalities of the upcoming trial, including:
Author Matt CutlerPosted on January 25, 2013January 25, 2013Categories Harness Dickey, Initial Conference CallTags america invents act, District Court, Harness Dickey, initial conference call, inter partes review, post grant review, ptab	Multiple Back-Up Counsel Allowed in Inter Partes Review	Despite the wording of 37 CFR § 42.10, as well as the accompanying comments thereto, that seem to limit parties to a single back-up counsel, the PTAB has recently granted concurrent pro hac vice motions that allow a patent owner to have two back-up counsel participate in a single Inter Partes Review proceeding. It remains to be seen whether the PTAB will or will not place a restriction on the number of back-up counsel that are able to participate in an IPR.
[pullquote align=”left|center|right” textalign=”left|center|right” width=”30%”]37 CFR § 42.10(a) – “If a party is represented by counsel, the party must designate a lead counsel and a back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel.”[/pullquote]
More specifically, the express wording of § 42.10 seems to suggest that only a single lead counsel and single back-up counsel is allowed in any Inter Partes Review proceeding. Further, the comments accompanying the rule only reinforce this limitation. To that end, one of the comments to the proposed Trial Practice Rules contained a proposal for multiple back-up counsel. In response, the Patent Office stated only one lead and one back-up counsel would be required in any proceeding:
The comment suggesting multiple back-up counsel is not adopted. Based on the experience of the Office in contested cases, designating one lead counsel and one back-up counsel by each party should result in more efficient and effective case management. “Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule,” 77 Federal Register 157 (14 August 2012), p. 48630.
The imposition of such a limitation could be, in some circumstances, unduly burdensome to parties in an Inter Partes Review proceeding. Given the schedules of busy attorneys, as well as the potential in Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review proceedings of multiple depositions within an abbreviated 3 month discovery period, having the ability to designate more than one back-up counsel could be advantageous and reasonable.
Despite the limitation in § 42.10 and the accompanying comments to a single back-up counsel, however, the PTAB recently granted two motions for pro hac vice admission in the ongoing IPR styled as Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Carl B. Collins and Farzin Davanloo (IPR2012-00035). In that case, therefore, the PTAB tacitly over-ruled § 42.10 by allowing two separate back-up counsel. The Board’s Order speaks of the patent challenger having “shown good cause why [counsel] should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding,” but the Order does not discuss whether good cause was shown to admit two separate back-up counsel. Indeed, the issue was avoided entirely by virtue of the fact that the grant of the motions for pro hac vice admission were made in two separate Orders.
It is also interesting to view this order in light of a Notice of Defective Petition entered in Midland Radio Corp. v. Anthony Mirabelli (IPR2013-00021) wherein the PTAB stated that the Midland Radio Petition was defective because it listed as back-up counsel “all counsel” associated with a particular PTO customer number. The PTAB instructed that “Per 37 CFR § 42.10(a), ‘the party must designate . . . a back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel.’” (emphasis in original). Thus, to receive a filing date for its petition, Midland Radio filed an amended petition that listed only a single back-up counsel.
In the end, time will tell whether two or more back-up counsel will be allowed on regular basis, or whether the Board will continue with its early practice in other contexts of sticking to the letter of the Trial Practice Rules.
Author Matt CutlerPosted on January 11, 2013January 14, 2013Categories Pro Hac Vice, PTAB OrdersTags inter partes review, ipr, orders, Patent Attorney, Petition, post grant review, pro hac vice, ptab	Posts navigation