Yesterday, the USPTO issued an internal memo to the Examining Corps informing them that the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) would be taking responsibility for patent reissue applications going forward. (Memo here) This move was first considered some years back under Director Kappos to remedy the
In the entire 13 year history of inter partes patent reexamination, 1919 such reexamination requests were filed. Granted, only patents that stemmed from post 11/29/99 patent applications were eligible. But still, even in 2012 (the high water mark for such filings) the USPTO received only 530 in total.
Since passage of the America Invents Act (AIA), Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method challenges continue to break records with each passing month. In June alone the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) received over 190 IPR and CBM petitions. By September 16 2014, the PTAB will have seen 2000+ petition filings in 24 months.
Can the PTAB keep up with this unprecedented surge in demand?
Please try one of the following:
For those in the Virginia area this July, consider the upcoming day-long Patent Resources group (PRG) program. The program covers post-grant patent practice. (6 Hours of CLE)
July 8, 2014 (Tuesday) Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review Proceedings Instructors: w.patentresources.com/faculty-bios/kevin-laurence/”>s of PatentsPostgrant.com $495 (register here)
As promised, even a bit early, the USPTO will issue a Request for Information in tomorrow’s Federal Register. The Notice, entitled,
Request for Comments on Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, will pose the following 17 questions:
Claim Construction
Although a few minutes late for today’s PatentsPostGrant.com webinar on the topic, the USPTO has now issued Preliminary Examination Instructions on Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., No 13-298 (June 19, 2014). Any member of the public may submit written comments by July
This time last year, I considered whether a negative outcome in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp might serve as a catalyst for 101 challenges at the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). That is, with most Covered Business Method (CBM) challenges including 101 grounds, and some
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. on patent eligibility standards for computer implemented inventions. This decision will impact current 101 challenges in CBM proceedings, and shape patent procurement/claiming strategies for software related methodologies going forward.
Please join me and my authoritative panel for
Prior to the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) many district courts were less than impressed with the lengthy pendencies of patent reexamination proceedings at the USPTO. For this reason, motions to stay a litigation pending patent reexamination were often denied based upon the perceived prejudice of a 5-6 year delay (typical of reexaminations through appeal). The patent challenge proceedings of the AIA (IPR, CBM and PGR) were specifically designed, at least in part, to remedy the pendency issue.
The new patent challenge proceedings of the AIA are conducted before the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) and must conclude, by statute, within 12 months of trial order. Many districts across the country have recognized the improved speed of the PTAB. Not surprisingly, the success rate for staying cases pending USPTO review has significantly improved.
Continue Reading 75% Success Rate for IPR Driven Stays
On June 12, Strafford Legal presents the webinar entitled:Leveraging Post Grant Proceedings Before the PTAB. I, along with my partner Greg Gardella, will explore the surging popularity of the PTAB and update registrants on the evolution of PTAB practices over the past 12 months (including a Q&A session). I