Update: Overruled in part by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal. In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, Case No. 2014-1719 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2016) (appeal of IPR2013-00067), the Federal Circuit provided further guidance on the PTAB’s administrative procedures regarding motions to amend claims. After considering Nike’s argument that 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) places the burden of … Continue Reading
Update: Overruled in part by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal. In a subsequent order, the court vacated the portions of the panel’s and the PTAB’s decisions concerning the patent owner’s motion to amend, and remanded the case to the PTAB for proceedings consistent with the Aqua Products decision. In December 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit … Continue Reading
Recently, in the pages of this blog, we reported on the dire predictions made at the IPO Annual Meeting here in Chicago of the “end of days” for patents. The purported culprits? The PTAB and the America Invents Act’s newly enacted Inter Partes Review and Covered Business Method Review. “Well, allow me to retort,” to … Continue Reading
Last Tuesday, for the first time ever, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB in an IPR decision by, among other things, ratcheting back the “broadest reasonable construction” standard for claim construction by declaring the PTAB’s construction “unreasonable.” The Court said that, “[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the … Continue Reading
The material contained on this blog is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Views expressed are those of the author and are not to be attributed to Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or any of its clients. The publication and receipt of any information contained on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP or with any of its attorneys. Readers should not act upon any information on this site without seeking professional legal counsel.