PTABWatch

Subscribe
Visit Blog
By: Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP

Blog Authors

Benjamin T. Horton
David A. Gass
Eric M. Brusca, Ph.D.
Giordana Mahn
Heather R. Kissling
Harrison B. Rose
Jennifer Burnette
Joshua T. Elliott
Julianne M. Hartzell
Jeremy R. Kriegel
John R. Labbe
Kevin D. Hogg
Kwanwoo Lee
Katherine L. Neville, Ph.D.
Kate Nuehring Su
Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D.
Michael J. Allikian
Marshall Gerstein
Matthew R. Carey
Michael R. Weiner
Matthew M. Jorge
Mark Levin
Michael Muczynski
Noah K. Tilton
Ryan N. Phelan
Ryan J. Schermerhorn
Sandip H. Patel
Sharon M. Sintich, Ph.D.
Thomas L. Duston
Tron Fu
Tiffany D. Gehrke
Thomas I. Ross
William K. Merkel, Ph.D.

Latest from PTABWatch

Incorporation by reference is not sufficient to satisfy specific reference to each prior-filed patent application to be entitled to an earlier priority date (Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank (887 F.3d 1309 (2018)). This appeal to the Federal Circuit stems from a dispute between Droplets, Inc. and E*TRADE Bank, over a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,402,115 (“the ’115 Patent”)) owned by Droplets. At issue is the effective filing date of Droplets’ ‘115 patent.…
For AIA trials instituted on or after March 15, 2019, the patent owner may opt-in to a pilot program the Patent Office implemented for motion to amend (“MTA”) practice and procedures in the PTAB’s administration of these trials. Today’s Federal Register (link) includes the Patent Office’s explanation of the program, which it proposed in October 2018. The Office’s explanation also includes its reply to comments the public offered in response to the proposal.…
Addressing the PTAB Bar Association Conference in its opening session, newly appointed Chief Judge Scott Boalick explained that his goal as Chief Judge is to bring stability to the board and increase predictability. He wants all parties coming to the Board to feel that they have gotten a fair shake and that the procedures are fair.…
  PTABWatch Takeaway: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance provides a useful, and effective, tool for demonstrating patent eligibility of software-related inventions. While the 2019 Guidance acts as persuasive authority only, the PTAB has relied on the 2019 Guidance as a rubric in numerous cases to analyze, and find patent eligible, software-related inventions. Practitioners and inventors seeking to overcome, or avoid, patent eligibility issues under Section 101…
It is puzzling, if not troubling, that the Federal Circuit recently invited (link) the Patent Office to submit a brief expressing its views on the scope of the petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a veritable Pandora’s Box. It is puzzling because only the judiciary can apply this estoppel provision, the Patent Office cannot. It is troubling not necessarily because the Patent Office unsurprisingly accepted the court’s invitation, but because it then…
In Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’real Foods, LLC, Appeal No. IPR2016-01107 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an IPR upholding the patentability of a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, the court discussed but did not determine whether improper standing at the time of filing a complaint might impact the application of the one-year time bar under 35…
Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), an IPR petition must identify “all real parties in interest,” and, an IPR petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if “filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, the real party in interest, or a privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” As we have discussed, PTAB decisions on whether § 315(b) has been satisfied are reviewable on…
In Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was not required to consider arguments first presented by the petitioner at oral argument, despite having remanded an earlier appeal of the Board’s decision for that very purpose. In that earlier appeal, the court had concluded that the Board deprived patent owner, Acceleron, a fair opportunity to rebut new arguments petitioner Dell…