www.patentspostgrant.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
172.67.132.127
Public Scan
Submitted URL: http://www.patentspostgrant.com/
Effective URL: https://www.patentspostgrant.com/
Submission: On November 11 via api from US — Scanned from CA
Effective URL: https://www.patentspostgrant.com/
Submission: On November 11 via api from US — Scanned from CA
Form analysis 3 forms found in the DOM
POST https://www.patentspostgrant.com/#lxb_mct-form-1
<form class="lxb_mct_subscribe_widget_form " action="https://www.patentspostgrant.com/#lxb_mct-form-1" method="post">
<label class="" for="lxb_mct-form-1"><i class="icon-envelope"></i> Subscribe to this blog</label>
<input type="email" required="" class="" id="lxb_mct-form-1" name="mc_email" placeholder="Enter Your Email Address...">
<label for="mc_website-lxb_mct-form-1" class="mc_website_label screen-reader-text ">Your website url</label>
<input type="text" id="mc_website-lxb_mct-form-1" class="mc_website " tabindex="-1" aria-hidden="true" name="mc_website" value="Website">
<input type="submit" class="" id="mc_submit-lxb_mct-form-1" name="mc_submit" value="Subscribe">
<input type="hidden" name="mc_input_id" value="lxb_mct-form-1">
<input type="hidden" name="mc_list_id" value="6e8d0ac4b1">
<input type="hidden" name="mc_redirect_to" value="">
<input type="hidden" id="mc_load_time-lxb_mct-form-1" name="mc_load_time" value="0">
<input type="hidden" name="profile_link_classes" value="">
</form>GET https://www.patentspostgrant.com
<form action="https://www.patentspostgrant.com" method="get"><label class="screen-reader-text" for="cat">Topics</label><select name="cat" id="cat" class="postform">
<option value="-1">Select Category</option>
<option class="level-0" value="435">101</option>
<option class="level-0" value="436">112</option>
<option class="level-0" value="405">314(a)</option>
<option class="level-0" value="459">315(b)</option>
<option class="level-0" value="337">325(d)</option>
<option class="level-0" value="518">Administrative Procedure Act</option>
<option class="level-0" value="364">Amendment</option>
<option class="level-0" value="201">Appeals</option>
<option class="level-0" value="369">Bio/Pharma</option>
<option class="level-0" value="216">Broadening</option>
<option class="level-0" value="234">Business Method Patent Challenge</option>
<option class="level-0" value="228">Certificate of Correction</option>
<option class="level-0" value="222">Claim Interpretation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="209">Concurrent Proceedings</option>
<option class="level-0" value="326">Constitutional issues</option>
<option class="level-0" value="461">Derivation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="235">Discovery</option>
<option class="level-0" value="506">Double Patenting</option>
<option class="level-0" value="210">Duty of Disclosure</option>
<option class="level-0" value="223">Empirical Analyses</option>
<option class="level-0" value="224">Error</option>
<option class="level-0" value="203">Estoppel</option>
<option class="level-0" value="427">evidence</option>
<option class="level-0" value="202">Ex Parte Reexamination</option>
<option class="level-0" value="212">General Information</option>
<option class="level-0" value="204">Inter Partes Reexamination</option>
<option class="level-0" value="229">Inter Partes Review</option>
<option class="level-0" value="221">Interference</option>
<option class="level-0" value="446">International Trade Commission</option>
<option class="level-0" value="226">Intervening Rights</option>
<option class="level-0" value="215">Intervening Rights and Survival of Claims</option>
<option class="level-0" value="247">Issue Joinder</option>
<option class="level-0" value="439">Licensing</option>
<option class="level-0" value="207">Merger with Other Proceedings</option>
<option class="level-0" value="218">Oath or Declaration</option>
<option class="level-0" value="685">orange book patents</option>
<option class="level-0" value="453">Party Joinder</option>
<option class="level-0" value="213">Patent Law Reform</option>
<option class="level-0" value="319">Patent Litigation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="236">Patent Prosecution</option>
<option class="level-0" value="230">Patent Trial & Appeal Board</option>
<option class="level-0" value="225">Post-Grant Review</option>
<option class="level-0" value="430">Precedential Opinions</option>
<option class="level-0" value="606">Preliminary Proceeding</option>
<option class="level-0" value="391">printed publication</option>
<option class="level-0" value="206">Procedures</option>
<option class="level-0" value="231">Protests</option>
<option class="level-0" value="217">Recapture Doctrine</option>
<option class="level-0" value="205">Reexamination</option>
<option class="level-0" value="208">Reissue</option>
<option class="level-0" value="220">Relation Between PTO Reexamination and Court Validity Judgment</option>
<option class="level-0" value="388">RPI/privy</option>
<option class="level-0" value="524">Secondary Indicia</option>
<option class="level-0" value="442">SEP</option>
<option class="level-0" value="316">Sovereign Immunity</option>
<option class="level-0" value="456">Standing</option>
<option class="level-0" value="214">Stay or Dismissal of Litigation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="219">Stays Pending Litigation</option>
<option class="level-0" value="211">Substantial New Question of Patentability</option>
<option class="level-0" value="233">Supplemental Examination</option>
<option class="level-0" value="1">Uncategorized</option>
<option class="level-0" value="232">Upcoming CLE</option>
</select>
</form>GET https://www.patentspostgrant.com
<form method="get" class="lxb_af-skinny_search overlay" data-controller="lxb_af-skinny_search-controller" data-closer="lxb_af-skinny_search-closer" action="https://www.patentspostgrant.com" role="search" style="display: none;">
<a href="#" class="lxb_af-skinny_search-closer"><span class="icon-close"></span> <span class="screen-reader-text">Close</span></a>
<div class="lxb_af-skinny_search-inner inner">
<div class="lxb_af-skinny_search-fieldset">
<span class="icon-search"></span>
<label class="screen-reader-text" for="lxb_af-s-163971">Enter Search Terms</label>
<!--[if IE 9]>
<input class='lxb_af-template_tags-get_search_form-search' type='search' id='lxb_af-s-163971' value='Enter Search Terms' name='s'>
<![endif]-->
<!--[if !(IE 9)]><!-->
<input class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_search_form-search" type="search" placeholder="Enter Search Terms" id="lxb_af-s-163971" name="s">
<!--<![endif]-->
</div>
<div class="lxb_af-skinny_search-fieldset">
<button class="lxb_af-template_tags-get_search_form-submit lxb_af-button" value="Search">Search </button>
</div>
</div>
</form>Text Content
Skip to content
MENU
Current Page:HomeTopicsSubscribe
Search
Inside Views & News Pertaining to the Nation's Busiest Patent Court
ALLERGAN OTDP EXCEPTION – REHEARING?
By Scott McKeown on October 2, 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT TO RECONSIDER IN RE CELLECT CARVE OUT?
Back in August, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Allergan
v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. That decision distinguished In re Cellect as
not generally deciding that a second later expiring patent can always serve as a
proper OTDP reference. And more particularly that a first-filed, first issued,
later-expiring claim cannot be invalidated by a later filed, later issued,
earlier expiring claim (yes, its a mouthful).
Yesterday, that decision was petitioned for en banc review.
Continue Reading Allergan OTDP Exception – Rehearing?
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
FINAL DIRECTOR REVIEW RULES
By Scott McKeown on September 30, 2024
FINAL RULES EXPAND DIRECTOR REVIEW REACH
The USPTO has now issued a final rule package (here) to implement the Director
Review process in AIA trial proceedings. The final rules follows the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of April 16th and responsive public comments.
Based on the comments, the final rule proposal has been revised to expand
Director Review to derivation proceedings, and will include other decisions in
AIA proceedings outside of just institution decisions and Final Written
Decisions (FWD) such as decisions to terminate.
The final rule provides that a party to an AIA proceeding may request Director
Review of:
1. Decision on institution
2. Final decision (defined as a final written decision in an inter partes or
post grant review proceeding or a final decision in a derivation proceeding)
3. Decision granting rehearing of a decision on institution or a final decision
4. Other decision concluding an AIA proceeding
The final rule further provides that the Director may initiate a review of such
decisions sua sponte; sets forth the timing and format of a party’s request for
Director Review; addresses the impact of Director Review on the underlying PTAB
proceeding; clarifies the time by which an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit must be filed; and provides that the Director may
delegate a review.
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
ALLERGAN “FIRST” EXCEPTION TO CELLECT OTDP SCENARIOS
By Scott McKeown on August 13, 2024
CAFC DISTINGUISHES CELLECT BASED ON FIRST-IN-TIME PATENT TERM
Today the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Allergan v. MSN
Laboratories Private Ltd. As expected by many following the case, the Court
decided that being “first” matters in double patenting scenarios—at least when
the subject and reference patent claim a common priority. (here)
Allergan answers one question, but others remain.
Continue Reading Allergan “First” Exception To Cellect OTDP Scenarios
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
CAFC BACKS PATENT OWNER ESTOPPEL – PTAB SHOULD STOP SUGGESTING OTHERWISE
By Scott McKeown on July 29, 2024
FWD BOILERPLATE ENCOURAGES REWORK
Rule 42.73 (d)(3)(i) explains that a Patent Applicant or a Patent Owner is
precluded from taking action inconsistent with a claim cancellation, including,
obtaining in any patent a claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally
refused or cancelled claim (IPR/PGR/reexam). Last week the Federal Circuit
clarified the scope of this rarely applied PTAB rule in SoftView v. Apple.
In practice, the agency has very rarely applied Rule 42.73. Examiners don’t
appear to be aware of the rule when prosecuting continuation filings or
reexamination/reissues. To my knowledge there has been no examiner training and
there are no MPEP insert paragraphs. And PTAB judges prefer to re-apply the art
used to cancel the earlier claims over a less familiar estoppel analysis.
Far more troubling, however, is the PTAB practice of suggesting to Patent Owners
that they may obtain new/amended claims after claim cancellation in an IPR/PGR
through patent reexamination or reissue.
Continue Reading CAFC Backs Patent Owner Estoppel – PTAB Should Stop Suggesting
Otherwise
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
PTAB DISCUSSES MOTION PRACTICE
By Scott McKeown on July 17, 2024
BOARDSIDE CHAT THURSDAY JULY 18TH
Tomorrow, Thursday, July 18, from noon to PM (EST), the USPTO will offer another
episode of its “Boardside Chat” webinar series. This month, the webinar will
focus on motions practice in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings before the
PTAB. The presentation will include a discussion of various motions that are
available to parties during an AIA proceeding, the procedural requirements for
filing each motion, and some common mistakes made during motions practice. PTAB
judges will also share practical tips and discuss strategies that may be
effective in seeking motions before the board.
The panel features:
• Administrative Patent Judge Brian McNamara
• Administrative Patent Judge Grace Obermann
A Q&A session will follow the presentation. Questions may be sent in advance or
during the webinar to PTABBoardsideChat@USPTO.gov. Register (here)
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON CONTROVERSIAL TERMINAL DISCLAIMER PROPOSAL NOW CLOSED
By Scott McKeown on July 10, 2024
FINAL RULE PACKAGE EXPECTED IN FALL
For those patent professionals living under a rock the past few months, the
USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) back in May that seeks to
add a new stipulation requirement for terminal disclaimers filed to overcome
non-statutory double patenting (here). Under the proposal, to overcome an
obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the Applicant would need to
stipulate that the entire patent subject to the terminal disclaimer will be
enforceable only to the extent that the conflicting claims of the reference
patent remain valid and enforceable. In other words, if conflicting claims of a
reference patent fail, so too would all claims of the subject patent, including
any patentably distinct claims.
The NPRM comment period closed yesterday and hundreds of public comments have
been collected (here). Now what?
Continue Reading Public Comment Period on Controversial Terminal Disclaimer
Proposal Now Closed
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
UPCOMING PTAB/LITIGATION WEBINAR
By Scott McKeown on June 17, 2024
LITIGATION/PTAB UPDATE & LOOK FORWARD TO 2025
For those seeking CLE, or just the latest updates and practice changes, consider
joining me and my colleague Libbie DiMarco for the upcoming Mid-Year Litigation
& PTAB Review. The webinar will be offered twice on Wednesday, June 26th. First
for U.S. attendees (12-1PM EST), and again for Asian based attendees (9-10PM
EST). CLE is offered for NY only.
The program will cover:
* 2024/2025 patent litigation trends: ITC domestic industry, double patenting,
forum shopping, legislative proposals, and more.
* Will the 2025 PTAB look like the 2024 PTAB? Rule proposals – what makes it?
Political turnover and new policies? Legislation?
* Pulling it all together to manage parallel proceedings in 2025 and beyond.
Register for either time (here)
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
PTAB SOP UPDATE
By Scott McKeown on June 13, 2024
PUBLIC NOTICE & TRANSPARENCY
Yesterday the PTAB announced an update to its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP
1). The update explains how judges are paneled, recused, and staffed on a given
case. This latest revision aligns with recently updated Paneling Guidance,
Standard Operating Procedure 4, and Director Review procedures. In other words,
this SOP is just memorializing how the Board has been internally managed. (Such
transparency has become increasingly important over the years given the cottage
industry of PTAB conspiracy theorists, which is certainly not lost on the
agency)
The SOP update (here), explains in relevant part:
* The SOP does not include a procedure for panel expansion, a process that was
discontinued in 2018
* Clarification of conflict of interest procedures for judges
* Explanation of judge jurisdiction (ex parte only, etc.)
* Explanation of judge paneling by technology and cluster (design,
reexamination, reissue, ex parte technology cluster)
* Explanation of judge paneling cases related to previous PTAB decisions
* Explanation of judge paneling of related AIA filings
* Explanation of recusal procedures
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
PTAB TO REVIEW RULE PACKAGES THURSDAY
By Scott McKeown on May 13, 2024
RULE PACKAGE DISCUSSION
This Thursday May 16th, from noon to 1 p.m. ET, the USPTO will conduct its
latest “Boardside Chat.” This week’s program will provide an overview of two
recently published notices of proposed rulemaking impacting the the PTAB.
* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Rules Governing Director Review of Patent
Trial and Appeal Board Decisions (April 16, 2024)
* Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Patent Trial and Appeal Board Rules of
Practice for Briefing Discretionary Denial Issues, and Rules for 325(d)
Considerations, Instituting Parallel and Serial Petitions, and Termination
Due to Settlement Agreement (April 19, 2024)
Register (here)
As always, a question-and-answer session will follow the presentation. Questions
may be sent in advance or during the webinar to PTABBoardsideChat@USPTO.gov.
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
TERMINAL DISCLAIMER PROPOSAL DRIVEN BY RERUN LAWSUITS
By Scott McKeown on May 9, 2024
PROPOSAL TO THWART RERUN PATENT ASSERTIONS
An inventor may obtain claims in a second U.S. patent that vary in only minor
(patentably indistinct) ways from claims the same inventor obtained in a first
patent. But the USPTO will typically reject the claims in the second application
under the doctrine of “obviousness-type double patenting.” Inventors can
overcome such rejections during prosecution to obtain the second patent (and
many more thereafter if desired) by filing a terminal disclaimer. The language
of the terminal disclaimer prevents the timewise extension of patent term
through multiple filings and prevents the indistinct claims from being
separately assigned. In this way, terminal disclaimers are designed to strike a
balance between incentivizing innovation while providing more certainty and
protection to the public.
Over the years, the terminal disclaimer has worked exactly as designed. However,
the usual bad actors have driven the USPTO to propose its first change in
decades.
Continue Reading Terminal Disclaimer Proposal Driven By Rerun Lawsuits
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
POST NAVIGATION
Older Posts
Latest Episode
Audio Player
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1737339/episodes/16033230-ryan-macdougall-discusses-business-development-in-the-legal-industry.mp3
00:00
00:00
00:00
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.
Ryan MacDougall Discusses Business Development in the Legal Industry
November 4, 2024
Ryan MacDougall is the Chief Business Development Officer for Wolf Greenfield.
Since joining the firm in 2010, he has…
Continue Reading
Listen On:
Apple Google Play Spotify Amazon
STAY CONNECTED
RSS LinkedIn Twitter
Subscribe to this blog Your website url
TOPICS
Topics Select Category 101 112 314(a) 315(b) 325(d) Administrative Procedure Act
Amendment Appeals Bio/Pharma Broadening Business Method Patent Challenge
Certificate of Correction Claim Interpretation Concurrent Proceedings
Constitutional issues Derivation Discovery Double Patenting Duty of Disclosure
Empirical Analyses Error Estoppel evidence Ex Parte Reexamination General
Information Inter Partes Reexamination Inter Partes Review Interference
International Trade Commission Intervening Rights Intervening Rights and
Survival of Claims Issue Joinder Licensing Merger with Other Proceedings Oath or
Declaration orange book patents Party Joinder Patent Law Reform Patent
Litigation Patent Prosecution Patent Trial & Appeal Board Post-Grant Review
Precedential Opinions Preliminary Proceeding printed publication Procedures
Protests Recapture Doctrine Reexamination Reissue Relation Between PTO
Reexamination and Court Validity Judgment RPI/privy Secondary Indicia SEP
Sovereign Immunity Standing Stay or Dismissal of Litigation Stays Pending
Litigation Substantial New Question of Patentability Supplemental Examination
Uncategorized Upcoming CLE
ARCHIVES
Archives Select Month October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June
2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 November 2023
October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023
March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022
September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022
February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September
2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February
2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August
2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January
2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July
2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019
December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018
June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December
2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017
May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November
2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April
2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October
2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March
2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014
September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014
February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September
2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February
2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August
2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January
2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July
2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011
December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December
2009 November 2009
RECENT UPDATES
* Allergan OTDP Exception – Rehearing?
* Final Director Review Rules
* Allergan “First” Exception To Cellect OTDP Scenarios
* CAFC Backs Patent Owner Estoppel – PTAB Should Stop Suggesting Otherwise
* PTAB Discusses Motion Practice
Published by
RSS LinkedIn Twitter
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer
Copyright © 2024, Wolf Greenfield. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo
Close
Enter Search Terms
Search