Document(s) published by this organization: 32
Show: results per page
|Any Port in a Storm: The Hatch-Waxman’s (Ever Expanding) Safe Harbor Provision|
Andrew P. Ritter; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
July 25, 2014, previously published on July 2014Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the multitude of men and women who helped establish the United States were visionaries in many ways. One of the most important of which was to provide Congress with the power “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited...
|Three ROY-G-BIV Corp. Patents Enter Inter-Partes Review, and Emerge Intact|
Sughrue Mion PLLC;
July 10, 2014, previously published on June 23, 2014The ABB, Inc. v. ROY-G-BIV Corp. series of Inter-Partes Review (IPR) proceedings are the first such proceedings where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that all of the challenged claims are patentable. In the related IPR proceedings, cases IPR 2013-00036, IPR2013-00282,...
|The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Grants an Unopposed Motion to Amend in an Inter Partes Review|
Azy Sophia Kokabi; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
July 4, 2014, previously published on June 10, 2014In International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. v. United States, Case 2013-00124 (Paper No. 12) the Board granted the first motion to amend by adding new substitute claims in an inter partes review. The Patent Owner only filed a Motion to Amend which was unopposed by the Petitioner.
|US PTO Orders Cancellation of “Redskins” Trademark Registrations|
Gary D. Krugman; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
June 24, 2014, previously published on June 18, 2014On June 18, 2014, The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Administrative Court of the US PTO for trademark cases, granted a petition to cancel six trademark registrations which consist of, in whole or in part, the term REDSKINS for professional football related services. The petition was brought...
|Supreme Court: Computer Implementation of Claims Directed to Abstract Idea are Patent-Ineligible|
James A. Gromada; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
June 24, 2014, previously published on June 19, 2014On June 19, 2014, in a tidy 17-page decision, Justice Thomas wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank that “claims [for exchanging obligations] at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer...
|Supreme Court Raises the Bar for “Definiteness” in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments|
Michael G. Raucci; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
June 24, 2014, previously published on June 4, 2014On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court set forth a new test for finding a patent clam indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Court held that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution...
|Patent Claims Survive IPR in a Rare Success for Patent Owners|
David Collins; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
June 17, 2014, previously published on May 22, 2014In LKQ Corporation v. Clearlamp, LLC (IPR2013-00020, Paper 73), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board upheld the validity of 12 of 24 claims in U.S. Patent 7,297,364, a patent concerning a method for the refurbishing of lamp surfaces in a vehicle so as to remove surface wear and scratches. The result...
|What is “Other Known Prior Art” in the Context of Amending Claims in an IPR?|
Azy Sophia Kokabi; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
May 22, 2014, previously published on May 8, 2014A recent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in adidas v. Nike, IPR2013-00067, suggests stringent requirements to establish patentability over other known prior art when amending claims in an inter partes review. Paper No. 60 entered April 28, 2014. The Patent Owner,...
|This Door is Shut: PTO’s Determination to Institute an IPR is Final|
Maggie Welsh; Sughrue Mion PLLC;
May 8, 2014, previously published on April 25, 2014The America Invents Act (“AIA”) act granted final authority whether to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”) to the Director of the United States Patent Office (“the PTO”). Specifically, 35 U.S.C. §314(d) states that “[t]he determination by the...
|Two PTAB Decisions Determine Whether A Non-Party Is Real Party-In-Interest|
John M. Bird; Sughrue Mion, PLLC;
April 29, 2014, previously published on April 16, 2014Two recent decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressed whether a non-party to an Inter Partes Review should be considered a real party-in-interest. Any real party-in-interest must be disclosed by the Petitioner in the Petition and by the Patent Owner within 21 days of service of...