Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 27, 2020 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed rule changes to govern inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The most significant proposal would eliminate the presumption that a genuine issue of material fact created by testimonial evidence filed with a patent owner preliminary response would be viewed in the light most favorable to petitioner when deciding to institute a review. Adoption of this rule could encourage more patent owners to file declarations with their preliminary responses, and may ultimately result in decreasing petitioner success rates in obtaining institution of review. The other changes would simply conform the rules to current USPTO practices, and are therefore less noteworthy. Below is a summary of each proposed rule change and its potential impact on PTAB practice.
The rule change of most import would remove the current presumption that a genuine issue of material fact created by testimonial evidence (such as an expert or inventor declaration) filed with a patent owner preliminary response would be viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner for purposes of deciding to institute a review. Under the amended rule, the Board would consider the totality of all the evidence on even ground when determining whether a petitioner has met the applicable standard for institution.
The original 2012 rules did not allow a patent owner to submit testimonial evidence with its preliminary response. The current rule came into effect in 2016, and allows testimonial evidence to be submitted with a patent owner's preliminary response, with the caveat that any genuine issue of material fact created by such evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner for purposes of institution. See, 37 C.F.R. §§42.108(c) and 42.208(c). The USPTO's description of this proposed rule change states that it believe the current rule should be amended due to concerns over patent owners being discouraged from filing testimonial evidence with preliminary responses. See, 85 FR 31728, 31729-30 (May 27, 2020).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.