For attorneys seeking post grant patent CLE this spring, there are a number of high quality programs scheduled over the next few weeks.
On March 20, 2014, Strafford Legal offers the webinar Parallel Patent Proceedings Before the PTAB and Federal Court Post AIA. This program provides a special emphasis on litigation
With Congress on the verge of passing still more legislation directed at alleviating the dreaded “patent troll” problem, perhaps Congress should pause to consider what has already been accomplished over the last 18+ months. As pointed at by Gene Quinn at IPwatchdog last week, Congress is in a rush to pass further patent reform legislation in the name of “helping Main Street America.” Yet, since September 16, 2012 the America Invents Act (AIA) has been wildly successful in providing a cheaper, faster, low cost alternative to patent litigation. Inter Partes Review (IPR) in particular has become the favorite anti-troll measure.
Typically, an IPR is pursued against the subject patent so that a stay of the costlier litigation can be obtained. Depending upon the jurisdiction/judge involved, the ability to stay a litigation pending USPTO review has increased significantly since the passage of the AIA. While this change in landscape is welcome news for those battling trolls, IPR is equally concerning for those patentees considered to be true technology innovators.
Continue Reading Medical Technology Patents at the PTAB
Senator Leahy will dust off his proposed bill S. 1720 entitled Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 next week. The Bill has been the subject of fairly intense lobbying over the past few months, stalling the otherwise fast track effort. With the mark-up scheduled for Senate
Last week, the USPTO issued the official tallies/progress statistics for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and the Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. As of March 6, 2014 the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has received 924 IPR petitions and 127 CBM petitions,
Last week, Chief Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) issued an Order (here) creating a second, Track B for patent cases. Track B as the name implies establishes a different, accelerated track as compared to the typical EDTX schedule (Track A). Litigants may opt for Track B by agreement, or be selected for such by the court. Track B is designed to reduce costs by accelerating milestones and limiting certain filing and discovery practices. These same concepts are expressed in many of the proposals of the pending patent reform legislation. The judiciary has been rather vocal on opposing the various proposals floating around Congress on issues of district court case management. While the goal of Track B is to resolve disputes sooner with less cost to litigants, the timing also suggests a deliberate amplification of the judiciary’s position.
To be sure, the proactive efforts of the judiciary to reduce time and expense of litigation are greatly welcomed, and the EDTX effort is to be applauded for taking the lead. Yet, based upon the dynamics of what is going on in the world of patent assertion post America Invents Act (AIA), the EDTX Track B docket could aid certain non-practicing entities that were only recently left for dead.
Continue Reading Could Track B Scheduling in EDTX Benefit Patent Trolls?
Wednesday, February 26th, the USPTO will host a program entitled “State of the PTAB” at their new Silicon Valley location. The program will cover an overview of the PTAB, Board growth — past and planned, day in the life of a judge, and training for new judges. While primarily
As final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings begin to issue from the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), it is clear that patentees have yet to master the process of amending their patents in these new proceedings. The primary disconnect appears to be the failure of patentees to recognize that an amendment in a PTAB proceeding is proposed by motion; an amendment is not entered as a matter of right.
Unless prosecution has been closed in the examination of a patent application or patent reexamination, a patent applicant/patentee is free to present virtually any number and character of claim amendments supported by their specification. Outside of the prohibition against broadening, or amendments relating to a patentably distinct inventions, a patent applicant/patentee is not required to do much else but present their new claims for examination. On the other hand, a motion to amend before the PTAB requires the movant (i.e., patentee) to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. This demonstration requires more than most patentees are accustomed to providing the USPTO.
Last Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded a round of additional staff hearings on pending Senate Bills S.1720 (Leahy) entitled Patent Transparency & Improvement Act. The hearings focused on the concerns of universities, small inventors, and restauranteurs/retailers with the currently proposed legislation. At the same time,
For attorneys seeking post grant patent CLE over the next few months, there are a number of high quality programs scheduled between February and April.
Next Wednesday, February 12th, the Practicing Law Institute presents the one hour briefing entitled: PTAB Roadblock to Patent Monetization. The program will explore the
Just a reminder that this Thursday the IPO Chat Channel will host a webinar entitled: /www.ipo.org/index.php/events/ip-chat-channel/”>cussion of this important practice development.