PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 8 – Oral Hearing

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Webinar: Request for Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings Before the PTAB July 29, Scott Boalick, Vice Chief Judge (Acting) Patent Trial and Appeal.

Advertisements

The FCC’s Revised Ex Parte and Procedural Rules Effective June 1, 2011.

ARGUING YOUR APPEAL BEFORE A PANEL OF THE BPAI IN AN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION Kevin F. Turner Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences.

PROSECUTION APPEALS Presented at: Webb & Co. Rehovot, Israel Date: February 14, 2013 Presented by: Roy D. Gross Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens.

Speeding It Up at the USPTO July 2013 July 23, 2013.

Administrative Trials

Appeal Practice Before Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Greg H. Gardella Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexamination Tactics AIPLA 2010 Winter Institute.

by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10

© 2015 Fox Rothschild Inter Partes Review Lessons Learned Scott R. Bialecki Fox Rothschild LLP June 24, 2015.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Counseling Clients re New USPTO Post Grant Proceedings and Interplay with Litigation.

PRESENTATION TITLE 1 America Invents Act: Creating “Rocket Docket” Patent Trials in the Patent Office.

Ch. 12 The Supreme Court. Petitions Stage: by what Routes can Cases Reach the Supreme Court? 1)Petition for Writ of Certiorari – most common Supreme Court.

Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference January 29,

The Court System Chapter 5.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson.

EPA’s ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION SYSTEM Environmental Appeals Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kathie A. Stein, Judge.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.

Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.

Doc.: IEEE /1129r1 Submission July 2006 Harry Worstell, AT&TSlide 1 Appeal Tutorial Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE

Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication LA 310.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association PTAB Update: IPR & CBM Sponsored by the Japan Patent Office Ron Harris, The Harris Firm.

Patent Prosecution May PCT- RCE Zombie 371 National Stage PCT Applications –Not Allowed to file an RCE until signed inventor oath/declaration is.

New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.

© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.

TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP IP in Japan Committee Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. October, 2015 USPTO Rule Changes and IPR Procedures.

8.4 The Supreme Court at Work. Court Procedures The Supreme Court meets about 9 months each year, each term begins the first Monday in October and runs.

Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.

10/13/08JEN ROBINSON - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER Claim Construction Order An order issued by the court in which the court construes the meaning of disputed.

Appeals From AIA Trials 35 U.S.C. § 141 – Final Written Decision must be appealed to the Federal Circuit File a Notice of Appeal with the Director of the.

1. Video Conference Interviews 2 Sean Hagan Director of the Midwest Regional United States Patent and Trademark Office Webinar for Knobbe Martens January.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 6 – Patent Owner Response 1.

The Supreme Court. Judicial Review: Power to consider the constitutionality of and act of government (legislative, Executive or Judicial) This power rests.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 2 – The Petition 1. The Petition 2.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 7 – Petitioner Reply and Motion to Exclude 1.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences May 15, Interference Practice Q&A James T. Moore Administrative Patent Judge

Using the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) for Post Grant Pilot Applications How to identify relevant information in AIA proceedings at the Patent.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 9 – Final Written Decision and Appeal 1.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 5 – Motions Practice, Discovery, and Trial Management Issues 1.

Fall  Alternative Enforcement : The City of Mankato has established an Administrative Enforcement and Hearing Program as an enforcement option.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 3 – The Patent Owner Preliminary Response 1.

Debate System. Parts of the debate: Pro Side 1.Lead Debater- opens the debate 2.Pro Cross-examiner- responds to what was presented by both the con cross-

The U.S. Supreme Court: Procedures and Principles.

The Applicability of Patent-Agent Privilege After In re Queen’s University at Kingston Presented by Rachel Perry © 2016 Workman Nydegger.

ptab game theory: patent owner versus petitioner

Omer/LES International/

Inter Partes Review and District Court

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 1 – PTAB Basics and Procedure

Chapter 5: The Court System

The judicial branch.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 12 – PTAB Popularity and Reasons

Pretrial Conference After discovery, a pretrial hearing is held to clarify the issues, consider a settlement, and set rules for trial Once the trial court.

POST Grant RevieW UPDATES

USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules

PTAB Bootcamp: Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs

What to Expect at a Medicaid Fair Hearing

Judicial Branch.

Writs of Mandate A Primer on Traditional and Administrative Writs

SAS Institute v. Iancu SAS appeals arguing § 318 requires deciding patentability of all claims challenged ComlimentSoft sues SAS for patent infringement.

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 4 – The Institution Decision

Class IV Objectives Subject Matter:

Appeal Tutorial Date: Authors: July 2006 Month Year

Chapter 3 Judicial, Alternative, and E-Dispute Resolution

Civil Pretrial Practice

Civil Pretrial Practice

Steps in Deciding a Major Case

The Supreme Court GOVT Notes 5-2.

8.4 The Supreme Court at Work

Proposed Commission Rules Changes WCLA 10/20/16

The Other 66 Percent: Appeals Before the PTAB

Presentation transcript:

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 8 – Oral Hearing

Oral Hearing

Oral Hearing Scheduling Order will include a due date for parties to request oral hearing; Request is typically granted if at least one party requests argument; 45 minutes – 1 hour per side for most cases; for consolidated (e.g., 2 patents) oral hearings, 1.5 – 2 hours per side; Petitioner goes first and can reserve time for rebuttal.

Oral Hearing – Board Participants Typically 3 judges, some may be participating remotely; Note where camera is and speak to camera, not screen showing remote judge; Board is active and will usually ask questions; For 45 minute argument prioritize 20 – rest of time may be consumed by questions; Board focuses on claim interpretation – may ask to construe terms not briefed; Know the record.

Oral Hearing - Testimony USPTO will consider requests for live testimony, case-by-case: Considering rule change: “The Office asked, ‘Under what circumstances, if any, should live testimony be permitted at the oral hearing? What changes, if any, should be made to the format of the oral hearing?’” 80 Fed. Reg. 50736 (Aug. 20, 2015). “Response: The Office will continue its present practice of considering requests for oral hearings on a case-by-case basis.” Id. Rarely granted: USPTO granted one motion requesting oral testimony: see K–40 Electronics, LLC v. Escort, Inc., IPR2013–00203, Paper 34 (P.T.A.B. May 21, 2014).

Oral Hearing – New Arguments New Arguments generally not allowed at oral hearing: “If certain testimony previously was not developed, discussed, or explained in a party’s papers, it may not be developed, discussed, explained, or summarized, for the first time, in the form of demonstrative slides at final oral hearing.” CBS Interactive Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, Paper 118, at 3 (Oct. 23, 2013). Include demonstrative exhibits in expert declaration (e.g., patent owner response or petitioner reply declarations) to make clear that the demonstratives are not introducing new arguments.

Oral Hearing - Demonstratives Must be served 5 days prior to argument and filed by time of argument – 37 C.F.R. § 42.70; Parties should try to work out objections; Can object via conference call request; Board may reserve portion of oral hearing for discussing appropriateness of objected to demonstratives; Board may use convincing demonstratives in Final Written Decision.