Remove topics sua-sponte
article thumbnail

PTAB Drops POP Panel Review Option

LexBlog IP

While technically and expansion of DR, this follows current practices in which the Director has addressed institution disputes sua sponte. On the ex parte side of the PTAB, a new Appeals Review Panel (ARP) is created that may be convened by the Director sua sponte, to review PTAB ex parte , reexamination, or reissue appeal decisions.

Designs 52
article thumbnail

OneSubsea IP UK Ltd. v. FMC Tech., Inc., No. 22-1099 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2023)

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Topic This case addresses the proper standard for an appeal of a discretionary decision by a successor judge as well as requests for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and certain circumstances that do not make a case exceptional.

IP 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

The Board has no Time to Waste: TTAB Highlights Importance of Correctly Submitting and Categorizing Evidence in Proceedings

LexBlog IP

The Board sua sponte struck RLP’s Notice of Reliance while also granting leave to file a proper amended notice. In its decision, the Board discussed the importance of properly categorizing and filing evidence, especially confidential and/or self-authenticating evidence.

article thumbnail

USPTO Appeals Panel to Clarify Antibody Claiming in MPF & Jepson Format

LexBlog IP

The USPTO is now committed to providing clarity on these topics in In re Xencor. The USPTO has established the Appeals Review Panel (ARP), which may be convened by the Director sua sponte to review decisions of the PTAB in ex parte appeals, reexamination appeals, and reissue appeals.

article thumbnail

PTAB Updates and Expands the Director Review Process and Offers Transparency in Ex parte Appeals

LexBlog IP

The Appeal Review Panel (ARP) will review the Board’s ex parte appeal decisions (concerning ex parte prosecution, reexamination, and reissue) when the Director sua sponte deems review is needed—patent applicants may not request Director review.

article thumbnail

(c) infringement and false advertising claims against addiction treatment competitor survive, in part

43(B)log

It wasn’t going to evaluate the issue sua sponte, but it suggested that plaintiffs be prepared to address the Dastar issues if they amended the complaint. You may be wondering: what about Dastar and Sybersound ’s extension of that reasoning, which is binding on this court? So is the court!

article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

The Kessler Doctrine : If you want to really dig into this case, please read my article on the topic that I wrote for an Akron Law review IP symposium issue. The invention in Yu was a multi-lens camera deemed abstract by the Federal Circuit. 2022)(forthcoming). The fourth and final case with a pending CVSG is Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v.