BPLA IP Case Law Club

September 16, 2016

Principal Scott Pierce will be leading the Boston Patent Law Association's (BPLA) IP Case Law Club event on Friday, September 16, 2016, from 8:15 - 9:30 a.m. at our office in Concord.

 

BPLA Event Description:

Boston Patent Law AssociationIn Re Aqua Products, Inc. and

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp.

Amending Claims During Inter Partes Review: Two Recent Cases

About sixty percent of all petitions filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking inter partes review (IPR) have been granted to-date.  Of the granted petitions, about seventy-five percent of patents reviewed under IPRs have been invalidated.  This is a much higher rate of invalidation than occurs in other forms of review by the Patent Office, such as ex parte reexamination.  One factor that may contribute to this disparity is a limited ability by patent owners to amend claims during IPRs.  For example, among the approximately one-thousand motions to amend claims to-date, the PTAB has granted less than ten.

Recently, in In re: Aqua Products, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a petition for rehearing en banc a decision affirming the PTAB’s denial of such a motion.  Even more recently, in Veritas Technologies LLC, v. Veeam Software Corp., the CAFC held that denial by the PTAB of the patent owner’s motion to amend was “arbitrary and capricious,” and “erroneous  independently of any resolution of this court’s recently-initiated en banc proceeding in In re: Aqua Products, Inc.”

We will discuss the following questions:

  1. Why did the CAFC uphold the PTAB’s denial in Aqua Products but label the denial in Veritas as “arbitrary and capricious”?
  2. Is the CAFC correct that the PTAB in Veritas is “erroneous independently” of any outcome of the rehearing en banc of Aqua Products?
  3. Is inter partes review fair to patent owners? 

 

For more information, please visit the BPLA website.

About

September 16, 2016

Principal Scott Pierce will be leading the Boston Patent Law Association's (BPLA) IP Case Law Club event on Friday, September 16, 2016, from 8:15 - 9:30 a.m. at our office in Concord.

 

BPLA Event Description:

Boston Patent Law AssociationIn Re Aqua Products, Inc. and

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp.

Amending Claims During Inter Partes Review: Two Recent Cases

About sixty percent of all petitions filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking inter partes review (IPR) have been granted to-date.  Of the granted petitions, about seventy-five percent of patents reviewed under IPRs have been invalidated.  This is a much higher rate of invalidation than occurs in other forms of review by the Patent Office, such as ex parte reexamination.  One factor that may contribute to this disparity is a limited ability by patent owners to amend claims during IPRs.  For example, among the approximately one-thousand motions to amend claims to-date, the PTAB has granted less than ten.

Recently, in In re: Aqua Products, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted a petition for rehearing en banc a decision affirming the PTAB’s denial of such a motion.  Even more recently, in Veritas Technologies LLC, v. Veeam Software Corp., the CAFC held that denial by the PTAB of the patent owner’s motion to amend was “arbitrary and capricious,” and “erroneous  independently of any resolution of this court’s recently-initiated en banc proceeding in In re: Aqua Products, Inc.”

We will discuss the following questions:

  1. Why did the CAFC uphold the PTAB’s denial in Aqua Products but label the denial in Veritas as “arbitrary and capricious”?
  2. Is the CAFC correct that the PTAB in Veritas is “erroneous independently” of any outcome of the rehearing en banc of Aqua Products?
  3. Is inter partes review fair to patent owners? 

 

For more information, please visit the BPLA website.

Back to the Top