Patent Owner, C.R. Laurence Co. Inc. (CRL), filed a patent infringement suit against Petitioner, Frameless Hardware Company LLC (FHC) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,074,413 (the.
On November 18, 2021, the Commissioner for Patents and acting Director of the USPTO, Andrew Hirshfeld, issued the second order granting a Petition for Director Review since the interim.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ( PTAB ) of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ) issued a final rule regarding
the allocation of the burden of persuasion for the patentability of
substitute claims on motions to amend in trial proceedings before
the PTAB, revising the rules of practice for inter partes
review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and the transitional program
for covered business method patents (CBM). 85 FR 82923 (Dec.
21, 2020). The rule became effective as of January 21, 2021
and codifies the current practice following the precedent set
[co-author: Megan McKnelly ]
On December 3, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) released data regarding the usage and success rates of its Motion to Amend (“MTA”) Pilot Program (“Pilot”). All PTAB cases instituted on or after March 15, 2019, are eligible for the Pilot, which provides two new options for MTA filers. The options include: (1) requesting preliminary guidance from the PTAB on a MTA and/or (2) filing a revised MTA after preliminary guidance or the petitioner’s opposition to the original MTA.
The PTAB reported that between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, it received 102 Pilot-eligible MTAs. Of those filed, 76% of MTAs opted to receive preliminary guidance and 79% opted to file revised MTAs under the Pilot. These opt-in rates differ from the previous rates reported by the PTAB for MTAs filed between June 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, where 83% of MTAs opted to receive preliminary guidance and 58% opted to file revised MTAs.
[co-author: Sachin Patel ]
Be careful not to confuse reprints with new editions when considering books as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). In
Twitter filed two IPRs challenging VidStream’s patents relating to methods for recording and publishing content on websites. The primary reference cited was a book known as Bradford. With the petitions, Twitter filed several pages of Bradford, including legend and copyright pages. One such page of Bradford, cited in Twitter’s petition, stated that the copy of Bradford was made on December 1, 2015. In its patent owner response, VidStream argued that Bradford was not an available reference for a 2012 priority date because it was published on December 13, 2015.