Contributor Page
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
 
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 312 474 6300
Fax: +1 312 474 0448
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago
IL 60606-6357
United States
By Sandip H. Patel
In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit decided on January 8, 2018, that the PTAB's application of the 35 U.S.C § 315(b) ...
By Ryan Phelan
The Postal Service filed a CBM petition to challenge the patentability (including the patent eligibility via 35 U.S.C. § 101) of certain asserted claims.
By Ryan Schermerhorn
Last fall, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that affirmed an Examiner's rejection of various claims in an ex parte reexamination because the Examiner's interpretation of the claims...
By Michael Weiner
In CRFD Research Ltd. v. Matal, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis, in part by failing to consider an argument the IPR petitioner made in...
By Eric Brusca, Ph.D.
In Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, No. 2016-1706 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded multiple IPR decisions where the PTAB failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence.
By Sandip H. Patel, Michael Weiner
Seven judges of the fractured court decided that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not—as it has long been doing— place on a patent owner the burden of proving patentability of a claim it moves to amend during an AIA trial.
By Kate Nuehring Su
The PTAB's Chief Administrative Patent Judge issued a memorandum on November 21, 2017, providing guidance on motions to amend in view of the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
By Katherine Neville, Ph.D.
In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., Appeal 2016-1678-1679 (April 2017), Novartis appealed two PTAB decisions holding claims of two patents obvious over cited prior art (IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550), arguing that previous judicial holdings of non-obviousness should control the PTAB's factual findings and that the claims should have been held non-obvious
By Heather R. Kissling
The Federal Circuit's decision in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017) attracted much attention for applying the theory of divided infringement in the context of pharmaceutical therapeutic regimen claims.
By Michael Weiner
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions illustrate how an error in construing claims may lead the court to reverse a PTAB final written decision.
By Sandip H. Patel
The Patent Office is also raising by 50% the fees for seeking institution and trial on claims in excess of the 20/15 claims that are part of the standard fees.
By Jennifer Burnette
On November 7, 2017, the USPTO issued a Final Rule recognizing that communications between U.S. and foreign patent practitioners and their clients that are reasonably necessary and incident...
By Kate Nuehring Su
The Board's recent decision in Veeam Software Corp. v. Veritas Technologies, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00090 (PTAB July 17, 2017), provides patent practitioners with a framework for analyzing proposed substitute claims.
By Julianne Hartzell
On October 24, 2017, the PTAB held its inaugural "Chat with the Chief" webinar. The main topic of the webinar was to discuss multiple petitions filed against the same patent.
By Tron Fu
Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit held "that statements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after an institution decision, can be considered for claim construction...