Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byWinfred Montgomery Modified over 9 years ago
1
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update Statistics based first three years of AIA filings 3,655 petitions –3,277 (89.7%) inter partes review (IPR) –368 (10%) covered business method (CBM) –10 (.3%) post grant review (PGR) Breakdown by subject matter –Electrical/computer (63%) –Biotech/pharma (9%)
2
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update (cont.) Trial Institutions* (awkward data) – IPR – 42% –CMB – 50% –PGR – 20% Results –12% of all claims available for challenge ultimately held invalid (4,496 of 38,462) (excludes claims dropped, settled or cancelled) –Compare this with first year’s worth of IPRs in which 25% of all claims available for challenge were ultimately held invalid
3
Expansion of Direct Infringement Akami v. Limelight (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) LimeLight is an online content distribution site, and the customers “tag” and “serve” content thereon. A user agreement requires this. Jury found direct infringement, trial court judge overruled on reconsideration. Supreme Court held that 271(b) requires a single direct infringer..
4
Expansion of Direct Infringement An entity is responsible for the other’s performance of method steps when: –(1) the entity directs or controls the other’s performance, or –(2) where the actors for a joint enterprise Before Direct infringement = all steps performed by a single entity or its agent After Direct infringement = all steps can be attributed to a single entity or its agent
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.