Resources

Blog

4/11/2017
미국에서 특허 침해의 의심을 받는 당사자가 이를 다툴 수 있는 방법에는 크게 두 가지가 있습니다. 하나는 연방법원에서 해당 특허가 무효이기 때문에 효력이 없다고 주장하거나 설령 특허가 유효하다고 할지라도 그 특허에 대한 침해행위를 하지 않았음을 입증하는 것이고, 또 한 가지는 특허청의 심판기관인 PTAB(Patent Trial and Appeal Board)에서 Inter Partes Review(IPR)를 통해...
4/4/2017
연 평균 약 80건의 상고사건을 심리하는 미국 연방대법원(이하 “대법원”)이 2주 연속 특허관련 사건의 Oral Hearing을 하는 것은 아주 드물다고 볼 수 있습니다.  그런데 대법원은 3월 21일에 있었던 특허소진(特許消盡: Patent Exhaustion)에 관한 Lexmark v. Impression 케이스에 이어, 지난 주 월요일(3월 27일)에 미국특허소송에 커다란 파급력을 지닌 또 다른 사건의 Oral Hearing을 열었습니다. ...
January 27, 2017
In Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001, (PTAB March 5, 2013), the Board set forth five factors—commonly referred to as the Garmin factors—for determining whether “additional discovery” will be granted to a party during a proceeding before the Board, such as an inter partes review (IPR) covered business method review (CBM) or...
October 06, 2016
It was known that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) rarely grants a patent owner’s motion to amend claims during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and there is no exception in an IPR proceeding involving Veritas Technologies LLC and Veeam Software Corporation (No. IPR2014-00090).  In view of the PTAB’s recent denial, Veritas appealed to...
September 26, 2016
When a particular patent is involved in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding or other post-grant review proceeding, the USPTO has wide discretion in determining whether to allow an additional proceeding to be instituted or continued.  The two governing statutes are 35 U.S.C. §315(d) and 35 U.S.C. §325(d), each of which states that “the Director...
September 02, 2016
On June 13, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) entered its first Final Written Decision in a Post Grant Review (PGR) proceeding. The PTAB found that the Petitioner had failed to show unpatentability based on prior art, but the PTAB agreed with the Petitioner that all claims are directed to unpatentable abstract ideas...
August 02, 2016
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) has a staunch reputation for rarely granting a patent owner’s motion to amend claims during inter partes review proceedings (to date, the Board has only granted six such motions to amend).  However, in the matter of Shinn Fu Co. v. Tire Hanger Corp., IPR2015-00208 (decided on April...
July 13, 2016
The America Invents Act (AIA) provided several mechanisms for reviewing the validity of issued patents.  While Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) is commonly used, a review of Covered Business Method  (“CBM”) patents is another mechanism for reviewing validity.  Moreover, challenging a patent using CBM can be more desirable than in an IPR, since CBM provides the...
June 23, 2016
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee.  There were two issues presented in Cuozzo: (1) whether the Board’s institution decision of an IPR is appealable, and (2) whether the broadest reasonable construction standard is appropriate to apply in patent office proceedings.  For both of these...
June 07, 2016
The outcomes of inter partes review petitions and final written decisions have differed dramatically for claims in pharmaceutical patents, compared to other technologies, particularly for obviousness challenges of claims to chemical compounds.  In its final written decisions of Orange Book-listed patents, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has found claims unpatentable 35% of the time, in...