Search
Searching Content by Anthony Hartmann from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP ordered by Published Date Descending.
Links to Result pages
 
1  
 
Title
Country
Organisation
Author
Date
1
PTAB Finds No Derivation In First Derivation Proceeding
The PTAB issued a final written decision in Andersen Corp. v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc., DER2017-00007
United States
4 Apr 2019
2
PTAB's First Oral Hearing In A Derivation Proceeding
The PTAB conducted its first oral hearing in a derivation proceeding instituted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.400 et seq. Andersen Corp. v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc.,
United States
6 Feb 2019
3
PTAB Institutes Its First Derivation Proceeding
On March 21, 2018, the PTAB instituted its first derivation proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.400 et seq., having denied many petitions over the years.
United States
28 Mar 2018
4
PTAB: What to Expect On Remand
Only a portion of Federal Circuit decisions on appeals from IPRs and CBMs have remanded the cases in full or in part to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB").
United States
4 Jan 2017
5
A Tale Of Two Methods: Conditions Precedent And Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
In an appeal of an Examiner's rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Board addressed the application of the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard.
United States
30 Nov 2016
6
IPR: Where A Finding Of Indefiniteness Is Not Necessarily A Definite Resolution
Inter partes review (IPR) is the most popular post-grant proceeding established by the America Invents Act of 2011.
United States
20 Oct 2016
7
Federal Circuit Provides Two-Part Analysis For Determining Reviewability Of PTAB Institution Decisions
The court found it "lack[ed] jurisdiction to review the Board's determination on whether assignor estoppel precludes it from instituting inter partes review." Slip op. at 19.
United States
29 Sep 2016
8
PTAB v. District Court: When A Claim Is Indefinite Lacks Reasonable Certainty
In a Petition for Inter Partes Review, a petitioner may challenge patent claims as being anticipated and/or obvious. 35 U.S.C. §311(b).
United States
20 May 2016
9
Derivation In 2015: Still No Instituted Proceedings
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) replaced interference proceedings with derivation proceedings for patent applications having a claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
United States
15 Jan 2016
10
PTAB And Discovery: An Insider’s Perspective
Recently, APJs Bonilla and Snedden authored a post on the USPTO AIA Blog entitled "Routine and Additional Discovery in AIA Trial Proceedings: What is the Difference?"
United States
22 Oct 2014
11
USPTO Virtual Marking Report: Too Early For A Full Assessment
35 U.S.C. § 287 precludes recovery of damages for infringement prior to providing notice of infringement for unmarked products.
United States
14 Oct 2014
12
Motions To Expunge: A Different Perspective Than A Motion To Seal
In RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., the PTAB denied RPX’s motion to expunge from the permanent record all documents that had been filed under seal in the proceeding.
United States
10 Oct 2014
13
Derivation: Possession Versus Conception
The PTAB explained that in order to institute a derivation proceeding, the petition must "demonstrate substantial evidence which would support the assertion of derivation."
United States
22 Sep 2014
14
Non-CBM Claims May Be Subject To CBM Review
In Liberty Mutual Insur. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insur. Co., CBM2012-00002, Paper 66 (Jan. 23, 2014), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") affirmed that where at least one claim of a patent is directed to a covered business method ("CBM"), the PTAB has statutory authority to institute a CBM review as to any claim of that patent.
United States
5 Feb 2014
15
Take A Chance On Supplemental Examination
Supplemental examination requests the USPTO "consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent." 35 U.S.C. § 257(a).
United States
 
26 Sep 2013
Links to Result pages
 
1