Search for: "Initiative Petition No. 314, In re" Results 1 - 20 of 53
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2021, 8:24 am by Jason Rantanen
By Jason Rantanen In re ESIP (Panel: O’Malley, Reyna, Chen) (link to decision: In re ESIP SERIES 2) This is a short nonprecedential decision in a petition for a writ of mandamus that was issued today but that isn’t on the Federal Circuit’s website. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 2:02 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed.Cir. 2015) (refusing to review Board’s consideration ofobviousness in the final decision despite not being raisedin the initial petition); Achates, 803 F.3d at 658 (refusingto review the Board’s assessment of the time-bar provisionsof § 315(b)); In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793F.3d 1268, 1273–74 (Fed. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 10:00 pm
§314, the Patent Office Director is tasked with determining whether to institute an IPR. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 6:50 pm by Dennis Crouch
GEYSER: (Arguing for the patentee) We’re simply reading 314(d) to say exactly what this Court in SAS said it meant, which is it is limited to only the initial patentability threshold in 314(a). [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 8:41 am by Dennis Crouch
  There is some really interesting parts of the petition and case, but the petition largely re-argues the evidence — typically a losing approach at the Supreme Court. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 4:12 am by Chris Wesner
• Within 7 days after the Remaining Petitioning Creditors’ receipt of the initial $30,000 payments, Tagnetics shall file with the court and serve, by email, upon on each of the Remaining Petitioning Creditors a notice of payment. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 7:15 am by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch In re Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 22-145, — F.4th — (Fed. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 6:25 pm by Scott McKeown
” And although the PTO “ostensibly applied § 314(a) to deny institution, it actually relied on § 325(d) considerations for its core analysis. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 2:35 pm
The Director of the Patent Office may also, on her “own initiative,” initiate such a proceeding. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 10:23 am by Ronald Mann
Lee, the statute gives the board unreviewable discretion over the decision whether to institute review; it only bars the board from initiating a proceeding unless it determines that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. [read post]
9 Sep 2007, 2:44 am
"IPBiz notes that BOTH ex parte AND inter partes re-examination proceedings are currently available to third parties, as exemplified in the re-exam of WARF patents by third party FTCR. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 2:08 am by V.D.RAO
This issue of maintainability is not being decided at the initial stage now unless there is a clear case for majority. 2. [read post]