In GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., the PTAB ordered Petitioner to produce invoices from its counsel, based on Patent Owner’s argument that related entities represented by Petitioner’s counsel in the related district court litigation were real-parties-in-interest
In Medtronic Inc. v. Troy R. Norred, the PTAB warned that “speaking objections” interposed by Patent Owner’s counsel during deposition of Patent Owner’s expert were improper under the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and that further violations of the
In Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Company, Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the Petitioner’s motion to correct the filing date of its IPR petition based on a “clerical error” in uploading an incorrect exhibit.
A quick reminder that this Thursday (October 16, 2014) is the deadline for submitting comments responsive to the USPTO’s Request for Comments on America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings, which was originally published in the Federal Register on June 27
In A.R.M. Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies LTD., the Patent Trail and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) because each of the asserted rejections relied on a reference that was not adequately proven to be a
When the America Invents Act (AIA) was passed into law in 2011, it was generally understood that the new post-issuance proceedings created by the law—Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method Review (CBM)—would change the