Patent Trial and Appeal Board

July 2016 Patent Prosecution Lunch Update

July 25, 2016

The July 2016 patent section of the prosecution lunch featured a discussion the newly introduced Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) program. Other topics included end-to-end e-filing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and authorizing internet communications in a patent application. The presentation concluded with a demonstration of the website examiner.ninja, which provides free statistical information about USPTO examiners. The presentation may be downloaded here.


August 2015 Prosecution Update

August 31, 2015

The August prosecution update featured a discussion of proposed changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rules governing proceedings before the board. The proposed rules include allowing patent owners to include new testimonial evidence such as expert declaration when submitting their opposition to a petition to institute a proceeding, requiring the PTAB to use the same claim construction standards used by district courts for patents that will expire during PTAB proceedings, and changes to the amendment procedures used by the PTAB during a trial. The prosecution update also included a review of the Cooperative Patent Classification system (CPC) and includes information about how to find relevant CPC classifications.

The presentation can be downloaded here.


August 2015 Litigation Update

August 21, 2015

The August litigation update included a discussion of some important statistics on post grant proceedings issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The statistics offer information on the number of Inter Partes Review (IPR), Covered Business Method Review (CBMR), and Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings that have been initiated and granted, the most common subject matter involved, and the number of claims held invalid in the end. The update also included a discussion of the Akami v. Limelight case that has been moving between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in Akami that showing inducement to infringe requires a single direct infringer. In response, the Federal Circuit has now expanded the definition of a “direct” infringer to include multiple parties working together in a joint enterprise.

The presentation can be downloaded here.