Justus Getty wrote: PTAB Can Consider § 101 When Reviewing Amended Claims The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has designated as precedential a decision holding that the Board may consider § 101 when evaluating the patentability of a patent owner’s proposed substitute claims in a motion to amend. The decision clarifies the (More) | |
John M. Baird wrote: Now in Effect – PTAB’s New Motion to Amend Procedures Overview
As recently noticed in the Federal Register, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) new motion to amend (MTA) procedures are now in effect as a one-year pilot program. [1] In sum, the patent owner (PO) now has the opti (More) | |
Christopher J. Tyson wrote: Law of the Case? Not in our Forum! Continuing Trend of PTAB Aggressively Using Its Discretionary Powers to Deny Institution of IPRs By statute, Congress gave the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) broad discretionary power in deciding whether or not to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding.[1] Recently, the PTAB’s application of this discretionary auth (More) | |
Gretchen L. Temeles, Ph.D. wrote: Business as usual at the Patent and Trial Appeal Board: the first cannabis related Patent and Trial Appeal Board decision at the United States Patent and Trademark Office Cannabis patent proceedings are no longer something reserved for a hypothetical future when cannabis becomes legal at the federal level. On January 3, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the United States Patent Office (USPTO) issued its decis (More) |
