About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« PTAB Institutes Its First Derivation Trial: Andersen Corp. v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc. | Main | FDA Permits Marketing of First AI-based Medical Device; Signals Fast Track Approach to Artificial Intelligence »

April 10, 2018

Comments

Hey Andrew,

Whether "neither party has the burden of persuasion with regard to Motions to Amend after the Aqua Products" would "have any practical impact for parties appearing before [PTAB]," it's still appalling that PTAB acts in this rogue manner as to the rules governing IPRs. Frankly, PTAB is bucking for an adverse APA ruling.

Even the "olive branch" offering smacks of the administrative agency having no regard for anything but its own views (and survival, albeit they seem NOT to get in their own way, seeing what they have done while Oil States is still in front of the Supremes - vis a vis at least the sovereign immunity situation of American Indian Tribes).

Although IPR claim amendment procedural improvements appear to be needed, the statement here that "there have still been many more motions denied than granted (even in part)" has to be taken in context with the fact that only a small percentage of patent owners ever even attempt to amend any of their IPR subject claims, and some of those attempts are made way too late.
If the PTO Director changes IPR claim interpretation from BRI to Philips it may encourage even more patent owners to risk not amending claims by unrealistic expectations of more difference than there actually is in most cases.

I do not see how you get to "risk not amending claims" through this supposed "unrealistic expectations" of "more difference than there actually is."

There is either a difference (generally), or there is not.

If not, then going away from BRI will have no effect (one way or another).

If a difference exists, then going away from BRI should be effected.

Either way, there is no reason - no cogent reason - to stay with BRI.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31