Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2017 Volume 42, Number 2
Content
- 2017 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Case Comments
- Contents
- Copyright Commentary
- Federal Government Expands Public Disclosure Requirements For Clinical Trials: Product Developers Must Publish More Detailed Information, Study Protocols, and the Results of Studies of Unapproved/Unmarketed Products
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2016-2017
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2016-2017
- Ip and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Standing Still: Denial of Certiorari in Belmora Llc v. Bayer Consumer Care Ag Leaves Question on Standing for Foreign Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Claims
- The Band Who Must Not Be Named: Summary of Briefs and Oral Hearing in Lee v. Tam
- The Licensing Corner
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Federal Circuit Report
Federal Circuit Report
REX HWANG
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP
NICK HUSKINS
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP
Editor’s Correction: Nicholas Huskins co-authored the Spring 2017 Federal Circuit Report with Rex Hwang in Volume 42, Number 1, 2017 of New Matter. His credit was inadvertently omitted from the print edition.
Introduced through the America Invents Act ("AIA"), a covered business method ("CBM") review proceeding is an administrative trial conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). Similar to inter partes review ("IPR") and post grant review ("PGR") proceedings, a party charged with infringement may initiate a CBM review to challenge the asserted patent’s validity. CBM review can be a powerful tool for accused infringers because it does not carry the same limitations as IPRs or PGRs. For instance, CBM reviews offer a broader range of grounds for challenging a patent’s validity than IPRs (e.g., section 101 and 112 challenges), and are available after the nine-month window of eligibility in which PGRs may be initiated. Notably, it has been reported that 97% of instituted CBM reviews have resulted in some or all claims being held invalid.1