One petition with clerical deficiencies was deemed
"complete" and conditionally granted a filing date, as
long as the defects are corrected within 5 business days of the
notice. This opportunity to correct clerical errors is consistent
with final rule 37 CFR Â§ 42.104, which provides that a
Petitioner may file a motion to correct "a clerical or
typographical mistake in the petition," and that such a
petition, if granted, will "not change the filing date of the
Who Has Filed IPR Petitions?
Robert Sterne of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox filed four
of the thirteen petitions, all on behalf of Intellectual Ventures
Management, LLC. My colleague Matthew Smith has filed three
petitions, each on behalf of different parties. Robert Lawler of
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. has filed two petitions, both on
behalf of Illumina, Inc.
Learning as We Go
With inter partes review documents readily accessible through
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board portal,
practitioners and stakeholders can watch inter partes review
proceedings progress, and see how the USPTO implements the new law
and applies the new rules on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the
twelve-month statutory time period for completing inter partes
review proceedings promises to yield final decisions in a
relatively short time period, further building a body of examples
to draw from. No doubt these first cases will be followed closely
and scrutinized for strategies to adapt and lessons to learn.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
As is well known, patent trolls often threaten dozens of alleged infringers in the hope of scoring quick license fees from those who understandably prefer to provide a modest payoff, thereby avoiding expensive and protracted litigation.
In order to best protect the IP rights of a U.S. company seeking to produce goods through a Chinese manufacturer by providing a protected design, the U.S. company needs to take actions even before the contracting stages.
On November 12, 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of issued the Draft Rules on Inventor-Employee Inventions for public comment, and this article seeks to reconcile the different provisions between the Implementing Rules and the Draft Rules.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.