Contributor Page
Brinks Gilson & Lione
 
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 312 3214200
Fax: +1 312 3214299
NBC Tower
Suite 3600
445 N Cityfront Plaza
Chicago
60611
United States
By Joshua James
On November 15, 2016, in Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Techs., Inc. the PTAB sua sponte reconsidered institution and terminated the CBM review nearly one year after the review was instituted.
By Ilhwan (Scott) Yoo, James Cleland
In its recent In re: Nuvasive, Inc. decision, the Federal Circuit on November 9, 2016 found that the PTAB in an inter partes review proceeding violated a patentee's rights under the APA.
By Jafon Fearson
In In Re: Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reiterated that its function is not to "reweigh facts already considered by the PTAB"...
By Miyoung Shin
The Federal Circuit granted Aqua Product Inc.'s en banc rehearing request on August 12, 2016. In its order granting rehearing, the Federal Circuit requested the parties to address the following questions...
By Allen Baum, Sen (Alex) Wang
On October 28, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") again proposed revisions to the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings.
By Daniel Parrish, Kyle Yarberry
In fact, the Corning Federal Circuit decision appears to be the first time the court reversed the PTAB for its treatment of the preamble.
By Eric Babych, Jacob Bachman, Andrew Umlauf
In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit discussed the non-appealable decision-making authority of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).
By Lawrence Almeda, Andrea Shoffstall
On October 6th, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a greatly anticipated study, the subject focusing on various Patent Assertion Entities' (PAE) business operations over a six year period.
By James Stephens, Eric Cohen, Elizabeth Chien-Hale
On October 7, 2016, the en banc Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision issued earlier this year and reinstated the district court's decision on multiple issues in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Appeal No. 2015-1171 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016).
By Bashir Ali PhD, Jason Qiu
On September 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit declined to review en banc a panel decision that a party challenging a patent in an IPR proceeding can present additional evidence of invalidity after a review is instituted
By Mircea A. Tipescu, Joshua Smith
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held a software-based patent to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.
By Evi Katsantonis, Howard Michael
On September 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide a case challenging the constitutionality of a law prohibiting registration of degrading trademarks with the USPTO.
By Stephen J. Leahu, Walter C. Frank
35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) requires that an accused infringer supply "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" for combination outside the United States.
By Brinks Gilson & Lione
Formed as a result of the 2011 America Invents Act, the PTAB has become singularly important as a tribunal in patent cases, including inter partes proceedings with respect to patent validity.
By Miyoung Shin
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") denied a petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) trial filed by the Petitioner, Praxair Distribution, Inc. ("Praxair") and NOxBOX Limited ("NOxBOX") based on estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) (reproduced below).