In Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to suspend prosecution of co-pending patent applications that were continuations of the challenged patent. PGR2015-00018, Paper 62 (Aug. 29, 2016).
PTAB denies patent owner’s motion to request a certificate of correction
A patent owner who wishes to use a certificate of correction to correct an alleged defect in a patent subject to a pending IPR must first obtain authorization from the PTAB before a request for certificate of correction can be
PTAB rules that standing for CBM proceeding must only exist at the time a petition is filed
In Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., the PTAB denied a Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate. IPR2014-00176, Paper 41 (Sept. 3, 2015). In so ruling, the Board made it clear that
Federal Circuit confirms that statutory bar defense to AIA proceedings is not subject to waiver
In GTNX, Inc., v. Inttra, Inc., — F.3d —, 2015 WL 3692319 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that a Patent Owner’s failure to invoke the statutory bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1)
PTAB confirms that it lacks authority to stay prosecution of related applications
In Chums, Inc. and Croakies, Inc. v. Cablz, Inc., the PTAB denied Petitioner’s request to file a motion to suspend prosecution of patent applications that were related to the patent that was the subject of the IPR proceeding. IPR 2014-01240
Rule changes for AIA trials are here, with more on the way
The USPTO recently announced changes to the rules for trials before the PTAB under the AIA. The announcement, which may be found here, indicates that the changes will be implemented via a series of rule packages using a three-part
PTAB allows submission of video deposition testimony as part of Patent Owner Response
In Pacific Market Int’l v. Ignite USA, LLC, the PTAB authorized submission of six videos as exhibits along with the Patent Owner Response. IPR2014-00561, Paper 27 (Feb. 5, 2015).
37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) states that “[u]ncompelled direct testimony