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: 1-10 of 362

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


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 exercises its discretion to deny second petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) and 325(d) where PTAB had already instituted trial over same patent, between same parties, over similar prior art references
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • December 9 2013

The PTAB may have shed some light on how it will address multiple petitions attacking the same claims of the same patent by the same petitioner


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


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


Supreme Court extends Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. to computer patents
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • June 23 2014

The Supreme Court held that patent claims that are directed towards abstract ideas will not be patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 unless the claim


Res judicata does not apply to a claim for patent infringement based on products that were not in existence at the time of an earlier lawsuit between the same parties
  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • USA
  • April 10 2012

The patent at issue generally claimed primary and secondary eyeglass frames that could be mounted to one another magnetically