About PostGrant-Counsel.com
PostGrant-Counsel.com is published by members of Pepper Hamilton LLP's patent review team. With backgrounds in patent prosecution and litigation across many industries, the team members concentrate their practices on challenging and defending patents after they have been issued, e.g., in inter partes review and the soon-to-be-implemented “post-grant” review as well as in corresponding proceedings in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. This experience enables the team to provide clients with counseling, advice and representation when they are contemplating a challenge to an issued patent – or when they may need to defend their own patent against a post-grant challenge.Subscribe Via RSS
Subscribe by E-mail
Suggest A Topic
Blogroll
-
Recent Posts
- Federal Circuit Criticizes PTAB for Failing to Properly Weigh Objective Evidence of Non-Obviousness
- CAFC Finds Another PTAB Claim Construction Unreasonable and Again Reverses an Invalidity Holding
- PTAB Can Rely on New Evidence Introduced by Petitioner in its Reply
- AIA On-Sale Bar Applies to Publicized Sales, Even When Knowledge of Sale Did Not Disclose the Underlying Invention
- IPR Estoppel Provisions May Not Be That Scary After All
Past Posts
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (1)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- September 2016 (1)
- August 2016 (1)
- July 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (2)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (3)
- April 2015 (3)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (1)
- November 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (1)
- August 2014 (1)
- July 2014 (2)
- June 2014 (1)
- May 2014 (1)
- April 2014 (1)
- February 2014 (5)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (1)
- November 2013 (3)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (4)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (7)
- June 2013 (5)
- May 2013 (5)
____________________
Monthly Archives: April 2016
Estoppel Does Not Attach When Petitioner’s Grounds Are Denied As Redundant
By Reza Mollaaghababa Under 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1), a petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent that has resulted in a final written decision by the Board may not request or maintain a proceeding before the … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Anticipation/Obvious, Court of Appeals Fed Circuit, Estoppel, Instittion Decision, Inter Partes Review, Trial Tactics, USPTO
Tagged AIA, America Invents Act, Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, Covered Business Methods, estoppel, inter partes, inter partes review, IPR, IPR procedure, post grant, Post-Grant, PTAB, trial practice, USPTO
New Final Rules for Post-Grant Proceedings Published by USPTO on April Fools Day
By Tom Engellenner The USPTO has gone ahead and finalized new rules for post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA) – despite heavy criticism that the rules do little to alter the lopsided nature of these proceedings. The new … Continue reading
Posted in America Invents Act, Covered Business Methods, Instittion Decision, Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, PTAB Procedure, Trial Tactics, USPTO
Tagged AIA, America Invents Act, Covered Business Methods, inter partes, inter partes review, IPR, IPR procedure, post grant, Post-Grant, PTAB, testimonial evidence, trial practice, USPTO
