InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

Last-minute submissions push PTAB comments total to 37



Michael Loney, New York


After 22 comments were submitted in the three days before the deadline for comments about Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, the USPTO has received feedback from a total of 37 companies, organisations and individuals

The USPTO published a request for comments in the Federal Register on June 27 this year, seeking public comment on all aspects of the new administrative trial proceeding rules and trial practice guide. The USPTO had originally given a deadline for written comments of September 16 but pushed it back a month to allow additional time to submit comments.

Thirty-seven comments were received in total. Among those submitting comments during the week before the deadline were ABA-IPL, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Cisco, Google and Oracle, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Innovation Alliance, Pfizer, PhRMA, Samsung and Unified Patents.

The USPTO outlined 17 questions for consideration including issues such as the claims construction standard, motions to amend, patent owner preliminary responses, obviousness, real party in interest, discovery, multiple proceedings, extension of the one-year period to issue a final determination, and the use of live testimony.

The USPTO is expected to make changes to PTAB proceedings after it taken on board all of the comments. Patent owners have raised concerns about the limited discovery and inability to amend claims under the proceedings in particular.

David Kappos, former USPTO director and partner at Cravath Swaine & Moore, told Managing IP in August: “I am 100% confident they will make some changes from what they learn from the input they are getting. I wouldn’t be surprised if some adjustments are made in the area of permitting claim amendment and discovery.”

You can keep up with all of Managing IP’s PTAB coverage at www.managingip.com/ptab

The full list of comments received by the USPTO is:

· ABA-IPL Section (October 16)

· AIPLA (October 16)

· Capital Legal Group, PLLC (October 15)

· Cisco Systems, Dell Inc., Google, Inc,, Oracle Corporation, et al (October 16)

· Digimarc Corporation (October 16)

· Dufresne, Andrew (October 16)

· Electronic Frontier Foundation (October 16)

· EMC Corp. and Adobe System Inc. (October 16)

· Espinoza, Gilberto et al (October 16)

· GEA Process Engineering, Inc. (September 16)

· Hospira, Inc. (September 16)

· Houston Intellectual Property Law Association (September 16)

· IBM Corporation (September 19)

· Innovation Alliance (October 16)

· The Internet Association (October 16)

· Intellectual Property Owners Association (September 16)

· Japan Intellectual Property Association (September 16)

· Keefe, Heidi (September 16)

· McKee, Christopher (September 12)

· McLeod, Rick (October 16)

· MIPLA IP Law (October 16)

· Morsa, Steve (October 14)

· Neifeld, Rick (October 16)

· New York Intellectual Property Law Association (September 16)

· Nugen, Fred (August 21)

· Pfizer, Inc. (October 16)

· PhRMA (October 16)

· Public Knowledge (September 30)

· Quillin, George et al (October 16)

· Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd (October 16)

· SAS (August 20)

· Smith-Pederson (October 8)

· Staff1@piausa.org (September 25)

· Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox, PLLC (October 16)

· Think Computer Corporation (September 12)

· Unified Patents (October 16)

· Williams, Andrew et al (October 16)


Comments






More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

nullnullnull

null

May / June 2019

From trademarks to trade secrets: in-house tips on brand protection in China

Despite the well-known struggles in protecting trademarks and trade secrets in China, there are some tried-and-tested strategies to employ, as Karry Lai and Ellie Mertens hear from in-house counsel at a range of domestic and international companies



Most read articles

Supplements