Your search for ‘Ropes & Gray’ returned 3,799 results

A Patent Owner may only avail itself of an IPR estoppel defense in court upon demonstrating that a competent prior art search would have uncovered the art that is asserted post-IPR (i.e., raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)).

The Defendants declined to file another 101 motion and represented that it would not file it again until after claim construction.

Recently, the Federal Circuit in Philips v. Google (here) explained that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) may only institute trial on grounds presented in a trial petition.

At the time SAS Institute first raised its challenge to the partial institution practices of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, I explained that should this argument ultimately prevail that it would be bad news...

While we await the en banc determination in Arthrex/Polaris, there have been a number of recent remands back to the PTAB (i.e., where the...

Back in June I explained the latest constitutional challenge to AIA Trial Proceedings under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The second decision outlines requirements for taking foreign depositions.

It can be an uphill battle to secure additional discovery at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) given the "interests of justice" standard of IPR proceedings.

Last week the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to begin accepting petitions for expedited resolution of ex parte appeals.

Yesterday, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) designated one new precedential case, and two informative decisions directed to the application of objective indicia to obviousness determinations.

While the summer months are relatively quiet when it comes to marquee CLE events and bar organization gatherings, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) is providing a rare opportunity for stakeholders in late July.

State-affiliated entities enjoy immunity from suit in federal courts under the 11th amendment.

On July 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a broad patent no-challenge clause in a Covenant Not to Sue agreement resolving a pre-litigation enforcement licensing effort was unenforceable on public policy grounds.

As reported earlier the new UPC will go live after 13 member states in the EU, including the UK, France and Germany, ratify the agreement.

On April 1, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a series of amendments to the rules of practice for trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

In advance of the upcoming hearing, the U.S. Dept. of Justice has filed its amicus brief supporting the agency's decision to deny immunity.

In 2012, for the first time, companies and government agencies subject to California’s Breach Notification Law were required to submit copies of their data breach notices to the California Attorney General when the breach involved the personal information of more than 500 California residents.