Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/topics/uspto/appeals/
Timestamp: 2017-07-28 17:41:58
Document Index: 684793265

Matched Legal Cases: ['§112', '§145', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§102', '§102']

USPTO, Appeals | JD Supra
United States Patent and Trademark Office › Appeals + Follow
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.... more + The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks. less - Understanding Patent Applications and Methods for Best Approaches in Europe and the U.S. The Patent Prosecution Highway | Brinks Webinar The U.S. Trademark Use Requirement and Associated Risks and Strategies for Chinese Applicants What are the Implications of Alice v. CLS? Derivation Proceedings: What You Need to Know Protecting and Enforcing Your High Technology Intellectual Property - Webinar Replay Patent Litigation and the Proposed Innovation Act of 2013 Demonstratives in Post-Grant Proceedings Court Stay Factors in Concurrent Post-Grant Proceedings Precedential Impact of Patent Trial & Appeal Board Decisions in Post-Grant Proceedings ITC: Protecting Intellectual Property in the US – Interview with Joe Hameline, Member, Mintz Levin Patent Office Litigation Update: Multiple Proceedings at the USPTO Patent Office Litigation Update: Design Patents Patent Office Litigation Update: Stays Fast Track Patent Examination Patent Office Litigation Update: IPR/Supplemental Examination Interplay Patent Office Litigation Update: Conducting CRU Oral Hearings in Ex Parte Reexamination Patent Office Litigation Update: Patent Zombies AIA Impact on Start Up Capital Oral Arguments Before the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board PTO Erred by Not Identifying Algorithm Corresponding to §112, ¶ 6 Element Before Invalidating Claims
On June 23, 2017, the Federal Circuit held in NantKwest v. Matal that patent applicants seeking review of a decision from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to the district court must pay the PTO's legal...more
by Finnegan – Federal Circuit IP Blog on 6/30/2017
In NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the USPTO’s motion for attorneys’ fees, holding that the “expenses” authorized under 35 U.S.C....more
Patent Applicants Must Pay USPTO’s Legal Fees For Appeals To District Court Under 35 U.S.C. §145 by Brooks Kushman P.C. on 6/28/2017
In a 2-1 panel decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that an applicant for patent who pursues an appeal to the U.S. District...more
by Knobbe Martens on 5/31/2017
The Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari to address whether the PTAB is required to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every claim challenged by a petitioner in SAS...more
The Federal Circuit held that statements made by a patent owner in an IPR, whether before or after institution, can be considered during claim construction in district court litigation and relied upon to support a finding of...more
by Finnegan – Federal Circuit IP Blog on 5/29/2017
On the same day the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft, the Court also granted a petition for writ of certiorari in SAS Institute Inc. v. Lee. The question presented in that petition...more
Federal Circuit Clarifies the On-Sale Bar Under the AIA: No Public Disclosure of the Invention Is Required if the Existence of the...
by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on 5/16/2017
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the on-sale bar generally holds that the sale of a patented invention more than one year before the filing date invalidates the patent. Before the America Invents Act (AIA), courts held that...more
by Brinks Gilson & Lione on 5/16/2017
In Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit recently held that, despite changes to the statutory language of § 102 under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Court’s pre-AIA...more
by Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC on 5/6/2017
At least so far, the meaning of “on sale” under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) has not changed from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) following a decision by the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,...more
by McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 5/1/2017
Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid -
In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more
PatentsPatent Trial and Appeal BoardInter Partes Review (IPR) ProceedingAmerica Invents ActPatent LitigationSCOTUSClaim ConstructionBroadest Reasonable Interpretation StandardPatent InfringementCuozzo Speed Technologies v LeePrior ArtObviousnessPatent-Eligible Subject MatterTrademarksPatent Invalidity