Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Amending Patent Claims in Post-Grant Trial Proceedings
The America Invents Act (AIA) gave patent owners the right to move to amend their patent claims in the context of AIA trial proceedings (inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method patent review (CBM)). To date, however, this right has been more illusory than real because it has been exceedingly rare for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to grant motions to amend. This became starkly clear when the Board released the results of its study on motions to amend, which showed that it had denied 95% of the motions included in the study. See, April 2016 PTAB Motion to Amend Study, at 4. Successful motions to amend largely have been those that cancelled claims (without seeking to add a substitute claim) — which are typically granted without substantive review, see, id. at 2 — or were agreed to by the parties as part of settling the post-grant proceeding.
Given their dismal success rate so far, many hope that the tide will turn in favor of granting more motions to amend. Indeed, as will be discussed below, the Federal Circuit is currently reviewing aspects of the Board's motion to amend framework en banc in In re: Aqua Products, Inc., Docket No. 2015-1177 (May 25, 2016).
Given the popularity of the PTAB trial proceedings — and the fact that patents involved in post-grant proceedings are often involved in co-pending litigation as well — a more robust mechanism for amending claims could impact a petitioner's calculus in deciding whether to file a petition in the first place. Additionally, because amended claims give rise to intervening rights, litigants in co-pending litigation will need to be mindful of the effect amended claims have on the course of the litigation.
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
Spurred By Data Breaches, CLOs Are Increasing Cybersecurity Leadership Role
Chief information officers still bear the brunt of cybersecurity worries at many companies. But a study by the Association of Corporate Counsel Foundation finds that chief legal officers are increasingly taking a leadership role in cybersecurity strategy.
GCs Want to Tap Into AI But Lack Roadmap, Report Shows
General counsel are eager to tap the promise of generative AI. But without clear technology road maps, many legal departments are struggling to turn that interest into action.
Is Google Search Dead? The Key to Thriving In an AI-Driven World
Part Two of this two-part articleexamines practical steps marketers must take to succeed in this changing landscape by embracing a multichannel, AI-driven approach to their marketing and PR efforts. This means rethinking your strategy to build direct connections with your audience, using platforms that elevate your visibility and focusing on storytelling that resonates.
Shifting Crypto and Cyber Enforcement Priorities In SEC
When the SEC issues the next annual enforcement report for fiscal year 2025, we expect securities offering actions and investment adviser actions will almost certainly be up, and the “crypto” and “cyber” cases will almost certainly be down. Public statements by the new SEC administration have said as much, but even more telling than public statements are the allocation of limited enforcement resources.
Seventh, Ninth Court Rulings Tighten Reach of Federal Video Privacy Protection Act
The VPPA may be nearly four-decades old and video-rental stores largely a thing of the past, but the rise of online content, streaming services and ancillary activities has brought with it frequent litigation based on the VPPA. The key challenge in these litigations is how to interpret the VPPA’s 1980s terms in light of today’s digital advances.