#inter-partes-review

#inter-partes-review

The technology at issue is a subcutaneous cosmetic penile implant, a silicone sleeve placed between the skin and 'Buck's fascia' to enhance girth and length.

Congress set the patent term at twenty years from the earliest effective filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (not counting provisional or foreign national filing). But that statutory baseline is just the starting point. But, the actual term is shaped by a series of prosecution decisions, USPTO delays, terminal disclaimers, and patent family structure.

Johnson and I discuss obviousness determinations built on excessive combinations of prior art, warning that such analyses blur the line between legitimate hindsight reconstruction and genuine innovation assessment. We also highlight a systemic blind spot: nuisance "ankle-biter" assertions that exploit litigation economics while largely evading PTAB scrutiny. These cases have driven much of the political backlash against patents while remaining functionally untouched by the post-grant review process.

Regents of the University of California ("Regents") and Broad Institute were engaged in a patent interference proceeding involving the adaptation of CRISPR systems to edit eukaryotic DNA. Both parties were engaged in extensive testing related to editing eukaryotic DNA during the time of the invention, and both filed multiple patent applications that became the subjects of the patent interference proceedings.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Todd Walters, who is Chair of the Patent Office Litigation practice group at Buchanan. We explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. We reflect on the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners and discuss the high financial stakes and strategic importance of America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings.

The enormity of the problem cannot be understated. A Federal Circuit panel recently reached a final decision that, if not overturned, will destroy the U.S. patent system, and will ironically impact the most valuable patents disproportionately. The ruling was simple and continues a disturbing and inexplicable trend-a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches.

The Board's Trial Practice Guide explains that 'one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations' and 'multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.'

The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).

The case centers on the "Martin" reference, a patent application covering LED technology that was filed on April 16, 2003 and published on October 21, 2004. Martin was later abandoned and never became a patent. Lynk Labs' '400 patent claims a priority date of February 25, 2004, placing it squarely in the gap between Martin's filing and publication dates. Samsung successfully used Martin to challenge claims of the '400 patent as obvious in IPR.