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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 329

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, No. 2012-1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 24 2013

The assertion of different claims in a subsequent suitwhen those claims all contain a limitation that has already been construed, in the same context

PTAB makes clear that observations on cross-examination are limited to reply declarants

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 14 2013

In Berk-Tek LLC v. Belden Techs. Inc., IPR2013-00057, Paper 43 (Nov. 1, 2013), counsel for the Patent Owner initiated a conference call with the

PTAB explains circumstances where cross-examination of declarant may be limited to grounds on which trial is instituted

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2013

The PTAB recently clarified the instances in which it might consider a motion to limit the cross-examination of a declarant and when it might not

“Substantial new question” vs. “reasonable likelihood”: has the difference in legal standard made a difference in practice?

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 19 2013

Under the America Invents Act ("AIA"), what was once the standard used by the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") to determine whether to institute

CBM review cannot raise prior art under pre-AIA section 102(e)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 19 2013

One key difference between IPR and CBM review is the availability of prior art. Certain prior arg cannot be raised in a CBM review. In what has

In re Hugh Edward Montgomery, John Francis Martin, and Jorge Daniel Erusalimsky, No. 2011-1376 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2012)

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 31 2012

Prior art describing an unexecuted process or protocol may inherently anticipate claims when the result at issue inevitably flows from its disclosures

Will ex parte reexamination become a tool for patent owners as a hedge against inter partes review?

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2013

As the Board continues to develop its jurisprudence related to the amendment of patent claims in inter partes review, the Board has repeatedly

PTAB clarifies burden of proving entitlement to earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112 in post-issuance trials

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2013

Until recently, there appeared to be an inconsistency in how the PTAB was treating the question of whether patent claims were entitled to an

PTAB places restrictions on the use of multi-party IPR petitions by defining all real parties-in-interest as a single “party” for post issuance trials.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2014

Parties considering pooling resources to file a single petition for post-issuance trial should take note of a recent decision by the Patent Trial and

35 U.S.C. 315(b) bars petition for inter partes review even if complaint was filed before enactment of the America Invents Act.

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2014

Section 315(b), Title 35 requires petitioners seeking inter partes review ("IPR") of a patent to file the petition for IPR within one year of service