The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) designated as informative a decision on institution of a post-grant review (PGR), which set forth an analysis for determining whether a design patent’s claims are primarily functional and therefore not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 171’s requirement that the invention be an “ornamental design.” Sattler Tech Corp. v. HumanCentric Ventures, LLC, Case No. PGR2019-00030 (PTAB July 26, 2019) (Gerstenblith, APJ) (designated precedential on June 11, 2020).
Latest Post
More Posts
No Hiding from § 317(b): Collateral Agreements Referenced in IPR Termination Agreement Must Be Disclosed
Fee Shifting Under § 285 Does Not Apply to Conduct Solely Arising in IPR
Arthrex Extended to Inter Partes Re-examination
“Waive” Goodbye to Belated Argument that Administrative Patent Judges’ Appointment is Unconstitutional
PTAB Time Bar Application in Instituting IPR Proceedings Nonappealable
PTAB Sets Double Standard for Qualifying Reference as “Printed Publication”
PTAB Designates Two Opinions Precedential and One Opinion Informative, Further Clarifying the Scope of the Board’s Discretion under § 325(d) to Decline Institution
Federal Circuit Confirms Time Bar Under § 315(b) Is Waivable
Determination of ‘Exceptional’ Under § 285 Must Be Made at the ‘Case’ Level
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org