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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 11-20 of 1,428

Lesson 1keep PTAB petitions clean and simple
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing the procedures for seeking a Covered Business Method (CBM) review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to institute


Printed publication in IPR
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing the requirements for proof of prior art in Inter Partes Review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that the


New PTAB trial rules proposed
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

On August 19, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a proposal to amend the existing Rules of Practice for inter partes review


USPTO releases update on subject-matter eligibility
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released an update to the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility


Non-analogous art is not prior art for purposes of obviousness
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and restored the jury’s verdict


Federal Circuit upholds ITC interpretation of 337 to cover induced infringement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

In a 6-4 ruling, a sharply divided en banc Federal Circuit overturned the original panel decision and deferred to the International Trade


Dismissal without prejudice does not trigger IPR statutory bar
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing the standard for the 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1) and (b) statutory bars to filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, the Patent Trial and


PTAB petition must specifically explain the grounds for invalidity
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

In a trio of orders addressing the extent of express explanation required in a petition for post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board


Rule 11 sanctions are rare and reserved for the most egregious of violations
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed an order sanctioning an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, holding that the


Section 325(d) does not preclude all second petitions
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing its decision to institute a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review based on a second petition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s