Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 JUNE 2020

PTAB Webinar On Potential Rule Changes

Ropes & Gray LLP
Ropes & Gray LLP
Contributor
Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray is one of the world’s most respected law firms, with offices in key business and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Ropes & Gray LLP

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) will conduct a "Boardside Chat" this Thursday, June 11, from noon to 1 pm (EST)

United StatesIntellectual Property
Scott A. McKeown
Scott A. McKeown
Author LinkedIn connections

Boardside Chat this Week

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) will conduct a "Boardside Chat" this Thursday, June 11, from noon to 1 pm (EST) to address a  number of topics including: new statistics on institution rates/final written decisions, and potential changes to AIA trial rules on institution and responsive briefing. Vice Chief Judge Mike Tierney and Lead Judge Bill Saindon will present. (access here)

The webinar is free and open to all. There will be a Q&A session at the end. Questions may be sent in advance or during the webinar to [email protected]

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.

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.

View source

Related Articles

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Tools Of The Trade (Secrets): A Trade Secret Playbook For The Post-Non-Compete World?

In our last post, we covered why building a trade secret management program matters more than blanket confidentiality designations. This post is about what a trade secret program makes possible when someone walks out the door, and why companies without one may be left with employment agreements that cannot do that job alone.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Article

The Final (?) Word: “Bad Spaniels” Stands

After 12 years of litigation, the Ninth Circuit has finally ruled in the epic trademark dispute between Jack Daniel's and VIP Products over the "Bad Spaniels" dog toy parody. The court's decision establishes crucial new standards for proving dilution by tarnishment, requiring brand owners to demonstrate mark-specific fame and actual reputational harm rather than relying on offensive associations alone.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Marks Gray
Marks Gray
Article

Navigating Training, Improving And Competition Restrictions In Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agreements

As organizations accelerate their adoption of generative AI, attention is increasingly shifting from the technology itself to the contractual frameworks that govern its use. What may appear to be standard licensing language can have significant implications for how businesses leverage AI tools, incorporate AI-generated content into their operations, and pursue future innovation strategies. This article examines one of the more consequential and evolving aspects of generative AI contracting, highlighting are
United StatesIntellectual Property
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Article

Staying True To The Specification: Federal Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Based On Unsupported Claim Constructions

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Article

In French Fry Design Patent Battle, District Court Denies Post-Trial Motions And Reinforces The Significance Of Rule 50 Motions

A federal district court in Idaho denied McCain Foods' post-trial motions in a design patent dispute over French fry shapes, upholding a jury verdict that found McCain's "Twisted Potato" willfully infringed Simplot's design patent. The decision reinforces critical procedural requirements for Rule 50 motions and clarifies standards for proving design patent infringement through photographs and marketing materials.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell LLP
Jeffer Mangels & Mitchell LLP
Article

Marked For Dismissal: Settlement Licenses Sink NPE’s Pre-Suit Damages

In VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed whether a non-practicing entity that licenses its patent through settlement agreements must ensure those licensees comply with patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). The court's ruling clarifies that patent owners cannot avoid marking obligations simply because they don't manufacture products themselves...
United StatesIntellectual Property
Irwin IP
Irwin IP
Article

Courts Expand The DTSA’s Reach To Foreign Trade Secret Misappropriation Following Motorola v. Hytera

The Seventh Circuit's 2024 decision in Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications established that the Defend Trade Secrets Act can reach conduct outside the United States and permit recovery of damages based on worldwide sales. District courts have begun applying this precedent, expanding the potential scope of liability for cross-border trade secret disputes. The ruling raises important questions about how minimal a US connection may be before federal trade secret protection no longer applies.
WorldwideIntellectual Property
Goodwin Procter LLP
Goodwin Procter LLP
Article

The Proof Is In The Priority: Director Squires Addresses Antedating And Prior-Art Qualification

Director Squires issued written opinions in two recent PTAB proceedings examining critical threshold questions about prior art qualification. One case explored whether sufficient evidence supported an earlier invention date to antedate prior art, while the other determined if a reference was publicly accessible before the patent's priority date.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP