Theodore Rand

1 week ago | jdsupra.com | Dion Bregman |Theodore Rand |Alexander Stein

USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently issued a decision discretionarily denying five petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by iRhythm against patents owned by Welch Allyn based on a factor that had not been used before—the petitioner’s longstanding awareness of an issued patent.

1 week ago | morganlewis.com | Theodore Rand |Alexander Stein |Dion Bregman

USPTO Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently issued a decision discretionarily denying five petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by iRhythm against patents owned by Welch Allyn based on a factor that had not been used before—the petitioner’s longstanding awareness of an issued patent.

Jul 29, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Dion Bregman |Theodore Rand |Alexander Stein

In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit added several new wrinkles to amendment practice in inter partesreview proceedings. The court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that most of the original claims challenged by an IPR were unpatentable as obvious, and reversed the Board’s determination as to the sole surviving claim, concluding that it too was unpatentable as obvious.

Jul 26, 2024 | morganlewis.com | Theodore Rand |Alexander Stein |Dion Bregman

In a recent opinion, the Federal Circuit added several new wrinkles to amendment practice in inter partesreview proceedings. The court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that most of the original claims challenged by an IPR were unpatentable as obvious, and reversed the Board’s determination as to the sole surviving claim, concluding that it too was unpatentable as obvious.

Jun 17, 2024 | ipwatchdog.com | Alexander Stein |Theodore Rand

“Looking at the Director Review (DR) decisions so far in 2024, preliminary observations show that the landscape around the DR process appears to be shifting from sua-sponte focused DRs to party-initiated DRs.”Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., while there were some mechanisms for review of decisions by Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panels, Director Review (DR) as a standalone review mechanism was essentially non-existent.