- 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
- State Universities Rejoice: PTAB Recognizes Sovereign Immunity Defense
- Federal Circuit Requires Standing To Appeal An IPR Decision
- Bass’s First IPR Decision Rendered – Victory for Patent Owner, Shire Lpc
- Despite PTAB “Sweet Talk” Federal Circuit Reverses Invalidity Of Deicing Patent
- When Can Common Sense be Relied Upon to Find an Invention Obvious?
- Status Quo At The PTAB For Now: Supreme Court makes no changes to IPR Practice
- PTAB Can Rely Upon Prior Art Not Cited in an IPR Institution Decision to Establish the State of Art
- Federal Circuit Erases a Rare Patent Owner Victory and Tells PTAB: No Changing Horses (Claim Constructions) Midstream
- Estoppel Does Not Attach When Petitioner’s Grounds Are Denied As Redundant
- New Final Rules for Post-Grant Proceedings Published by USPTO on April Fools Day
- Bass Continues Fishing; Pharma Seeks Sanctuary
- Affirmative Defense of Invalidity As Part of a Motion to Intervene Does Not Bar Filing of a Subsequent IPR Petition
- CAFC Vacates a PTAB Decision Due To Faulty Claim Construction
- Battle Between Sneaker Makers Nike and Adidas Will Go Another Round
- Patent Trial and Appeal Board Adds Two More Cases to its List of Precedential and Informative Decisions
- No Second Bite Of The Apple for Square, Inc. – PTAB Applies Estoppel Provision Of 35 U.S.C. §325(e)(1) TO CBM Review
- Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity Of A Merck Patent Based On Substantial Evidence Standard
- A Decision Not to Institute a Trial at the PTAB Does Not Carry Much Weight in Federal Court
- Fed. Circuit Affirms PTAB’S CBM Decision Based on a Ground Not Raised By Petitioner
- Hedge Fund Troll Undetered by Initial Setbacks
- Bass Goes Fishing: Troubles Ahead for Pharma?
- PTAB’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Rule Survives Another Challenge (Barely)
- Post-Grant Challenges In Life Sciences: A Midyear Assessment
- USPTO Responds To Criticism By Promising PTAB Rule Changes That Should Benefit Patent Owners
- PTAB Panels Are Divided Regarding Interpretation Of The Joinder Provision
- Federal Circuit Panel Blesses BRI Standard for Claim Construction at PTAB But Another Panel May Not
- Does the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Make Sense?
- Do-Gooders Won’t Take “No” For An Answer
- Stanford Patent Found Invalid in IPR proceedings but Licensee’s IP Survives
- Do-Gooders Need Not Apply
- First Post Grant Review Petition Filed
- PTAB Grants a Patent Owner’s Request to Amend
- If at First You Don’t Succeed: File, File And File Again
- What Should A Jury Be Told About A Concurent PTO Trial?
- PTAB Trial Institution Decisions – Are They Ever Appealable?
- Lessons From The First Year Of Post Grant Proceedings In The U.S.
- The PTAB Rules That Time Bar of Section 315(B) Applies Even To Complaints Served Prior To Enactment of AIA
- The PTAB’s Denial of Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend Underscores the Obstacles that Patent Owners Face In Amending Challenged Claims
- A Declaratory Judgment Action that was Dismissed Without Prejudice Does not Bar the Institution of an IPR
- PTAB Strikes Down Patent Claims — Despite Settlement and Request from Parties to Terminate Proceeding
- A Ticking Clock – The PTAB Continues to Define What Constitutes a Complaint Alleging Patent Infringement
- Settlement of an IPR Proceeding Does Not Necessarily Stop Review the Patent
- PTAB Rejects Covered Business Method Claims
- The Time Limit for Filing an IPR After Commencement of Patent Litigation Applies to Counterclaims
- Lack of Speed Kills – The Dangers of Waiting in the PTAB
- PTAB Chief Judge Smith Shares Santa’s Secrets with Boston Patent Attorneys
- Differing Approaches to Stays of Co-Pending Litigation
- PTAB Nixes Presentation of Video-Recorded Testimony at Oral Hearing as New Evidence
- What is Inconsistent Information and When Must Such Information be Disclosed?
- Stranger in a Strange Land – USPTO Clarifies Rules for Pro Hac Vice Admission
- A Patent Owner Bears a Heavy Burden in Amending Claims in an IPR Proceeding
- No Fishing Allowed – Limits on Discovery Before the PTAB
- The More the Merrier – Joinder under the AIA
- In For a Penny – Are Fee Increases Reducing the Number of Ex Parte Reexamination Filings?
- Chief Judge James Smith Comments on PTAB’s Docket
- Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen? – PTAB Puts Parallel Reviews By Central Reexam Unit on Hold
- Beware Of PTAB Rules Against Lengthy Submissions
- PTAB Issues Guidelines on Foreign Language Testimony
- Are Peace and Love Breaking Out at the PTAB? – (Settlement of IPR Proceedings: Part 2)
- Protecting Confidential Information at the PTAB – Part 2
- Reexamination Obliterates a $24 Million Verdict
- Hold’em or Fold’em? – So Far Patent Owners Show Little Interest In Settling IPR Proceedings
- Stay of a Permanent Injunction Pending
- Using Experts in AIA Inter Partes Review Proceedings – Part 1
- Protecting Confidential Information at the PTAB – Part 1
- PTAB Renders Its First Decision
- IPR and Stays of Co-Pending Litigation
- Too Much of a Good Thing: The Challenge of Being Comprehensive and Yet not Redundant
- To Respond or Not To Respond? – The Patent Owner’s Dilemma of a Preliminary Response
- What Not To Say in Your IPR Petition
- Live by the Sword: Challenges to University-owned Patents
- Who Is A Real Party In Interest?
- First AIA Oral Hearing At The PTAB – Breaking New Ground?
- Use of Post Grant Proceedings to Challenge Bad Patents
- Post-Grant Proceedings Under the America Invents Act
- Welcome to PostGrant-Counsel.com
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)
____________________
