Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Ruling on Filing Of Supplemental Information
The Federal Circuit continued its largely deferential treatment of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) procedural rulings in Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 15-1047 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 31, 2015), upholding the PTAB's denial of Petitioner Redline's motion to submit supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. '42.123(a), within a one-month window from institution of an inter partes review (IPR). The Federal Circuit also affirmed the PTAB holding that U.S. Pat. No. 6,526,808 (the '808 Patent), was not invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. '103. Practitioners should be aware that entry of supplemental evidence after institution of an IPR is not routine, even within the one-month window from institution of the IPR, and remains firmly up to the PTAB's broad discretion.
Procedural Background
The '808 patent relates to methods for generating smoke used to test for the presence and location of leaks in a fluid system, such as the evaporative or brake system of a motor vehicle. In its initial Petition requesting IPR, Redline proposed 12 grounds for invalidity, and the PTAB instituted a trial on two of them. Redline did not provide an expert declaration with its initial Petition. Instead, within a month of the IPR trial being instituted, Redline requested, under 37 C.F.R. '42.123(a), entry of a 60-page expert declaration, supported by its expert's bio and two prior art patents. During oral argument, Redline offered that the primary driving reason for filing the expert declaration under Section 42.123(a), as opposed to with the Petition, “was one of cost savings”. Slip op. at 12, n. 3. The expert declaration purportedly supported Redline's contention that claims 9 and 10 of the '808 patent were obvious in view of prior art. However, the PTAB declined to enter the supplemental information and expunged it from the record. Following a Final Rejection from the PTAB, Petitioner appealed to the Federal Circuit.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?