Tag Archives: Board

A Different Challenge To The Post-Notice Of Appeal Patent Term Adjustment Problem

Deca-Medics, Inc. has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) award based on how its patent application was processed after a Notice of Appeal was filed. While I have written about the problem with the USPTO’s interpretation of 35 USC § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) and the USPTO is … Continue reading this entry

Three Proposed USPTO Board Rules That Should Not Be Adopted

Please welcome Andrew Baluch as a new contributing author for PharmaPatentsBlog! There is a lot to like about the USPTO’s proposed rules for the new patent trial proceedings that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will conduct under the America Invents Act (AIA). On the whole, the proposed rules released last month appear to … Continue reading this entry

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Section 145 Case (Kappos v. Hyatt)

On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kappos v. Hyatt. The issues before the Court relate to the scope of new evidence that a patent applicant can introduce against the USPTO in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”) and the degree of … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Issues New Guidance On New Rejections On Appeal

The USPTO’s final Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals includes new rules relating to new grounds of rejection on appeal, and new guidance on what constitutes a “new” ground of rejection in an Examiner’s Answer. Although the new rules only apply to cases in which a Notice … Continue reading this entry

Another Board Affirmance Found To Improperly Rely On A New Ground Of Rejection

Barely two weeks after vacating the decision of the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in In re Leithem as being based on a new ground of rejection, the Federal Circuit took similar action in In Re Stepan Co. While the Board in Leithem had relied on different characterizations of the cited prior art references, … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Vacates Board Affirmance Found To Rely On New Ground Of Rejection

The recent Federal Circuit decision in In re Leithem highlights what some practitioners believe is a growing problem with decisions from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: the Board’s practice of “affirming” a rejection based on a new ground of rejection. The court soundly criticized this practice when it vacated and remanded the Board … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Reweighs 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 121 for Single Claim Restriction Requirements

The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is revisiting the balance between 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 121, and their interplay in the context of single claim restriction requirements. While many practitioners believe that binding case law decides this issue against the practice of single claim restrictions, the Board appears to … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Reverses Rejection Based On Board Conjecture

The recent Federal Circuit decision in In re Huai-Hung Kao addressed obviousness rejections in three separate patent applications assigned to Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The court affirmed the Board’s rejections in two of the applications, but vacated and remanded in the other application. This article looks at the court’s finding in that application that the rejection … Continue reading this entry

An Ounce of Prevention Can Be Patentable Over A Pound of Cure

In In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that held a claim obvious. The decision is remarkable in that it overturned the Board under the deferential "substantial evidence" standard, and found that the USPTO had not even established a prima facie case of obviousness. The court also criticized the Board for dismissing the applicant's evidence of commercial success because it only related to one embodiment of the claims. … Continue reading this entry

Is Pre-Appeal Brief Review Worth The Effort?

The USPTO provided outcome statistics from the Pre-Appeal Brief Review program in the notice of proposed rulemaking for the proposed changes to ex parte appeal practice before the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The data reveal mixed results, but are encouraging enough to justify the relatively low costs of the program. The Pre-Appeal Brief Review … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Proposes To Simplify Patent Appeal Practice

The USPTO has published proposed changes to the rules governing practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. While the proposed changes salvage a few elements from the 2008 "Final Rules" that never took effect, the USPTO plans to rescind that rules package. In its place, the USPTO has proposed a rules package that appears to … Continue reading this entry

Follow the Bouncing Brief

Earlier this week I wrote about the patent-eligibility decision from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in In re Kelkar. While reviewing the prosecution history of the appeal, I was struck by the number of times the Appeal Brief was “bounced” for failing to comply with one or more requirements of 37 CFR … Continue reading this entry