In Apple v. Smartflash (CBM2015-00015, 16, 18 and CBM2014-00194), the PTAB allowed subsequent patent office trials to continue without participation of the Petitioner.

Grounds for adjustment of patent term due to examination delay include, for example: (1) Failure, on the part of the PTO to take certain action within specified time frames.

After successfully conducting several symposiums in 2016, IIPRD is coming up with one-day seminar on software and electronics patent portfolio with focus on preliminary preparation, prosecution, and litigation in India and US.

In the KSR Case, the Supreme Court held that the patent claim at issue was obvious, and therefore invalid.

In “KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.”, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007), the Supreme Court held that the test for obviousness used by the Federal Circuit was inconsistent with the patent Statute and Supreme Court precedent.

On October 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia preliminarily enjoined implementation of the U.S.P.T.O. New Patent Rules package announced on August 21, 2007.

Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences, the Supreme Court clarified the uncertain scope of the safe harbor under §271(e)(1), following the Federal Circuit’s vacillating pronouncements which suggested that the statutory exemption is limited to generic drug applications and to data from human clinical trials.The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s narrow interpretation, holding that the exemption includes information reasonably related to the development of information submitted for approval