We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 1,069

Will an IPR result in a stay of co-pending litigation?

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 17 2013

Since September 16, 2012, when the procedure became available, challengers have filed 234 requests for inter partes review. In 82 of these filings

Senate bill proposes expansion of post-grant review of business methods

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 15 2013

Last week, Senator Charles Schumer introduced a bill intended to expand the scope of covered business methods eligible for post-grant review under

IPRPGR proceedings: litigation or prosecution?

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2013

IPRPGR proceedings share many similarities with other trial proceedings, such as district court proceedings. Like other traditional trial

A first look: IPR filing and technology trends

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 7 2013

Since the commencement of inter partes review (IPR) back on September 16, 2012, over 200 petitions have been filed. Below is a snapshot of the

Lessons learned from early decisions declining to institute an IPR

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 3 2013

The PTAB has denied petitions for inter partes review in five of its 54 institution decisions (as of April 30, 2013

Five considerations before filing an IPR

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 1 2013

The Basics: IPR is short for inter partes review. IPR is a new trial proceeding conducted by the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). A

Assuaging estoppel concerns: defining "real parties in interest" after the AIA

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2013

The newly passed America Invents Act (AIA) raised fears among co-defendants in patent infringement lawsuits about the potentially broad scope of the

PTAB denies authorization to file motion to disqualify district court counsel from IPR

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2013

In ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00179 (JL), Paper 9 (April 16, 2013), the Board denied ScentAir's request to file a motion

Last month at the Federal Circuit - April 2013

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 26 2013

In Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., No. 12-1342 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's decision granting

What information will the USPTO allow to be sealed during an IPR

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 24 2013

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision addressing the treatment of confidential information submitted during an inter partes

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy