Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
PTAB to Follow Nautilus Standard of Definiteness
On Jan. 6, 2021, Director Andrei Iancu issued a memorandum on behalf of the United States Patent and Trademark Office requiring application of the same standard in matters under the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) jurisdiction that is used by federal courts in determining definiteness under 35 U.S.C. §112. Under this standard, articulated in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), a claim challenged for indefiniteness is unpatentable if the claim read in light of the specification and prosecution history "fail[s] to inform, with reasonable certainty", one of ordinary skill in the art of the invention's scope. Previously, the PTAB used the standard articulated in In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where a claim was indefinite when "it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."
The memorandum cites the PTAB's confusion as to whether Nautilus or Packard applies in post-grant proceedings. The memorandum cited BASF Corp., v. Ingevity South Carolina, LLC, PGR2020-00037 (PTAB Sept. 10, 2020), which cites both approaches and notes that the Federal Circuit declined previously to decide which one applies to the Post Grant Review process, and Dong Guan Leafy Windoware Co. Ltd., v. Anli Spring Co., PGR2020-00001 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2020), where the PTAB noted that the issue of which standard applies remained an "open issue."
To support the decision, the memorandum stated that the change were made at least partially because "the office's claim construction standard in AIA post-grant proceedings now aligns with that used by courts in a civil action, and … indefinite questions are generally considered as part of the claim construction process." The change was implemented with goals to "lead to greater uniformity and predictability, improve the integrity of the patent system, and help increase judicial efficiency."
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?