ARTICLE
9 December 2020

PTAB/USPTO Update - December 2020

W
WilmerHale

Contributor

WilmerHale provides legal representation across a comprehensive range of practice areas critical to the success of its clients. With a staunch commitment to public service, the firm is a leader in pro bono representation. WilmerHale is 1,000 lawyers strong with 12 offices in the United States, Europe and Asia.
David Berdan has been appointed USPTO's General Counsel. As General Counsel, Mr. Berdan will serve as the principal legal advisor to the Director.
United States Intellectual Property
WilmerHale are most popular:
  • within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration and Environment topic(s)

USPTO News

  • David Berdan has been appointed USPTO's General Counsel. As General Counsel, Mr. Berdan will serve as the principal legal advisor to the Director. He will also supervise the Office of General Counsel and its three component offices: the Office of the Solicitor, the Office of General Law and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
  • The PTAB introduced a new  online form that allows individuals to submit an amicus request supporting or opposing a pending request for POP review in a particular case. Summaries of the currently pending requests for POP review are provided below.
  • The  2020 Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) Annual Report has been released. The report includes information on patent policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees. It will be transmitted to the President, Secretary of Commerce and the judiciary committees of the Senate and House of Representatives within 60 days following the end of each fiscal year.

Notices, Guidance and Requests

Final Rules

Interim Rules

  • There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

USPTO News

  • David Berdan has been appointed USPTO's General Counsel. As General Counsel, Mr. Berdan will serve as the principal legal advisor to the Director. He will also supervise the Office of General Counsel and its three component offices: the Office of the Solicitor, the Office of General Law and the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
  • The PTAB introduced a new  online form that allows individuals to submit an amicus request supporting or opposing a pending request for POP review in a particular case. Summaries of the currently pending requests for POP review are provided below.
  • The  2020 Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) Annual Report has been released. The report includes information on patent policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees. It will be transmitted to the President, Secretary of Commerce and the judiciary committees of the Senate and House of Representatives within 60 days following the end of each fiscal year.

Notices, Guidance and Requests

Final Rules

Interim Rules

  • There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

PTAB Decisions

  • There are no new Precedential or Informative PTAB Decisions.

Pending Requests for POP Review

  • Atlas Copco Tools and Assembly Systems LLC et al v. Wildcat Licensing WI LLC  (IPR2020-00891 and IPR2020-00892) [Notification of Receipt of POP Request issued November 19, 2020] [Patent Owner requests rehearing of Institution Decisions, contending, inter alia, that the Board "rel[ied] on new theories not presented in the Petition, and inviting Petitioners to further develop these new theories during trial" and "fail[ed] to apply Advanced Bionics' binding precedent ... where, as here, it is undisputed that the 'same or substantially the same art' was previously presented to the Office and the Petition did not (nor even attempt to) show the Office erred."]
  • Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC (IPR2020-00112, IPR2020-00113, IPR2020-00114, IPR2020-00582, and IPR2020-00583) [Notification of Receipt of POP Request issued November 18, 2020] [Petitioner requests rehearing of Institution Decisions, presenting the questions of "[w]hether the Board erred in its precedential decisions in NHK and Fintiv, which together give the Board discretion to deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) solely because parallel district court litigation is likely to resolve the patentability issue before the deadline for the Board's Final Written Decision" and "[w]hether—as part of the Fintiv  analysis—the Board must at least consider (a) the identity and prior conduct of the Patent Owner and (b) the likelihood that the validity of all claims challenged in the petition will ultimately be resolved in a district court trial."]
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Kannuu Pty, Ltd.  (IPR2020-00737 and IPR2020-00738) [Notification of Receipt of POP Request issued October 15, 2020] [Patent Owner requests rehearing of Institution Decisions, contending that "[Petitioner] is precluded from requesting review of [Patent Owner]'s patents in [the PTAB] because the parties entered into a valid and enforceable nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with a forum selection clause that requires that [Petitioner] bring any disputes relating to the NDA or transactions contemplated by the NDA—such contemplated transactions including [Petitioner]'s license of [Patent Owner]'s patents—in the courts of New York."]

PTAB Decisions

  • There are no new Precedential or Informative PTAB Decisions.

Pending Requests for POP Review

  • Atlas Copco Tools and Assembly Systems LLC et al v. Wildcat Licensing WI LLC  (IPR2020-00891 and IPR2020-00892) [Notification of Receipt of POP Request issued November 19, 2020] [Patent Owner requests rehearing of Institution Decisions, contending, inter alia, that the Board "rel[ied] on new theories not presented in the Petition, and inviting Petitioners to further develop these new theories during trial" and "fail[ed] to apply Advanced Bionics' binding precedent ... where, as here, it is undisputed that the 'same or substantially the same art' was previously presented to the Office and the Petition did not (nor even attempt to) show the Office erred."]
  • Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC (IPR2020-00112, IPR2020-00113, IPR2020-00114, IPR2020-00582, and IPR2020-00583) [Notification of Receipt of POP Request issued November 18, 2020] [Petitioner requests rehearing of Institution Decisions, presenting the questions of "[w]hether the Board erred in its precedential decisions in NHK and Fintiv, which together give the Board discretion to deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) solely because parallel district court litigation is likely to resolve the patentability issue before the deadline for the Board's Final Written Decision" and "[w]hether—as part of the Fintiv  analysis—the Board must at least consider (a) the identity and prior conduct of the Patent Owner and (b) the likelihood that the validity of all claims challenged in the petition will ultimately be resolved in a district court trial."]
  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Kannuu Pty, Ltd.  (IPR2020-00737 and IPR2020-00738) [Notification of Receipt of POP Request issued October 15, 2020] [Patent Owner requests rehearing of Institution Decisions, contending that "[Petitioner] is precluded from requesting review of [Patent Owner]'s patents in [the PTAB] because the parties entered into a valid and enforceable nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with a forum selection clause that requires that [Petitioner] bring any disputes relating to the NDA or transactions contemplated by the NDA—such contemplated transactions including [Petitioner]'s license of [Patent Owner]'s patents—in the courts of New York."]

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More