Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
+1 (702) 462-5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

NEWS

US Supreme Court Decision Regarding PTAB Judges

News

In the U.S. v. Arthrex case, the US Supreme Court decided that PTAB judges were wrongly appointed but holding that the USPTO’s Director should have the unilateral ability to review the judges’ decisions. This way US Supreme Court has provided a remedy such that if PTAB decisions are reviewed by the USPTO’s Director then the constitutionality requirement would…

Read More

The Significance of Words in a Design Patent

News

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit stated that the title and claim language can limit the scope of a design patent when the patent’s drawings don’t indicate what type of product is involved. The court’s reasoning could have significant ramifications for design patent law. When considering the scope of a design patent, judges typically…

Read More

Success Story for Our Client after Appealing the Case

News

We received a Non- Final Office Action from the Examiner on March 16, 2020 in which the Examiner did not allow any of our claims. More specifically, the Examiner rejected our broadest claim 1, as well as claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 13-16, 18 and 20 with a total of seven different references. Additionally, the…

Read More

Another Success Story For Our Client

News

This is a good example of we never give up and do anything we can for our client to get a successful result.   This is an application at the European Patent Office (EPO) where the case received an oral proceeding notice after several office communications.   The last office action rejected all claims under…

Read More

USPTO extends certain CARES Act relief for small and micro entities

News

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed significant hardships on many of our stakeholders. As a result, the USPTO has waived certain fees under existing authority through the March 16 notice, and has extended certain patent and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) deadlines three times under the Coronavirus…

Read More

USPTO releases additional information on the COVID-19 Trademark Prioritized Examination Program

News

On June 15, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the COVID-19 Prioritized Examination Program for certain trademark and service mark applications, which allows COVID-19-related trademark applications to be advanced out of turn and immediately assigned for examination. On June 30, the USPTO launched a related webpage, where applicants can find additional resources and information…

Read More

USPTO announces Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program

News

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to begin accepting petitions for expedited resolution of ex parte appeals. The “Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program” launches July 2, 2020. The required petition fee is $400. “The Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program serves as an extension of…

Read More

May 2020 Update Regarding Certain Patent-Related Timing Deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and Other Relief Available to Applicants, Patent Owners, and Others

News

The USPTO issued a new communication regarding patent related deadlines for those affected by the COVID-19. The announcement is given below. In accordance with section 12004 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) further extends the time to file certain patent-related…

Read More

May 2020 Update Regarding Certain Trademark-Related Timing Deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and Other Relief Available to Applicants, Registrants, and Others

News

The USPTO issued a new commun regarding trademark related deadlines for those affected by the COVID-19. The announcement is given below. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed significant hardships on many of our stakeholders. As a result, the USPTO has waived certain fees under existing authority,…

Read More
Load More

PTAB designates one decision as precedential and four decisions as informative

Ex parte Grillo-López, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (Jan. 31, 2020) (precedential)

This decision to deny a request for rehearing explains that the burden for establishing that a reference is a printed publication is different in examination than in an inter partes review proceeding. The holding in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), does not apply to examination.

Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00204, Paper 19 (May 23, 2016) (informative as to section II.B)

This decision determines that the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that a reference was publicly available because the record included only a district court joint statement of uncontested facts identifying the reference as a printed publication. The joint statement did not involve the Petitioner and expressly indicated that it was only for purposes of the district court litigation.

Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc., IPR2016-00840, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2016) (informative as to section II.A.i)

This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a reference was publicly available, where the record included testimony that the reference was deposited in a university library, indexed and available for retrieval by the public, and that reprints of the reference bear a copyright and publication date.

Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (June 5, 2018) (informative as to section III.C.1)

This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a drug package insert was publicly available, where the record included a screenshot of an archived FDA webpage from the Internet Archive and testimony from a medical doctor describing the use and accessibility of information on the FDA’s webpage.

In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company, IPR2019-00849, Paper 14 (Sept. 6, 2019) (informative as to section I.E)

This decision determines that the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that a conference paper was publicly accessible because the paper’s copyright date and date stamp were insufficient to show that the paper was actually disseminated prior to the date of the conference, or otherwise available to interested persons of ordinary skill in the art.

During a recent speech at INTA’s 141st Annual Meeting, USPTO Director Iancu stated that USPTO will implement a new rule requiring those with a foreign-domicile must have a lawyer licensed to practice law in the United States to represent them in any trademark matter at the USPTO.

We would like to let our clients and potential clients know that we will continue to help our clients with Patent and Trademark matters. We have attorneys and agents who are licensed to practice at USPTO and licensed to practice law in the United States. These agents and attorneys will continue helping our clients with Patent and Trademark matters.

PTAB designates one decision as precedential and four decisions as informative

Ex parte Grillo-López, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (Jan. 31, 2020) (precedential)

This decision to deny a request for rehearing explains that the burden for establishing that a reference is a printed publication is different in examination than in an inter partes review proceeding. The holding in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), does not apply to examination.

Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00204, Paper 19 (May 23, 2016) (informative as to section II.B)

This decision determines that the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that a reference was publicly available because the record included only a district court joint statement of uncontested facts identifying the reference as a printed publication. The joint statement did not involve the Petitioner and expressly indicated that it was only for purposes of the district court litigation.

Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc., IPR2016-00840, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2016) (informative as to section II.A.i)

This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a reference was publicly available, where the record included testimony that the reference was deposited in a university library, indexed and available for retrieval by the public, and that reprints of the reference bear a copyright and publication date.

Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (June 5, 2018) (informative as to section III.C.1)

This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a drug package insert was publicly available, where the record included a screenshot of an archived FDA webpage from the Internet Archive and testimony from a medical doctor describing the use and accessibility of information on the FDA’s webpage.

In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company, IPR2019-00849, Paper 14 (Sept. 6, 2019) (informative as to section I.E)

This decision determines that the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that a conference paper was publicly accessible because the paper’s copyright date and date stamp were insufficient to show that the paper was actually disseminated prior to the date of the conference, or otherwise available to interested persons of ordinary skill in the art.

During a recent speech at INTA’s 141st Annual Meeting, USPTO Director Iancu stated that USPTO will implement a new rule requiring those with a foreign-domicile must have a lawyer licensed to practice law in the United States to represent them in any trademark matter at the USPTO.

We would like to let our clients and potential clients know that we will continue to help our clients with Patent and Trademark matters. We have attorneys and agents who are licensed to practice at USPTO and licensed to practice law in the United States. These agents and attorneys will continue helping our clients with Patent and Trademark matters.

PTAB designates one decision as precedential and four decisions as informative

Ex parte Grillo-López, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (Jan. 31, 2020) (precedential)

This decision to deny a request for rehearing explains that the burden for establishing that a reference is a printed publication is different in examination than in an inter partes review proceeding. The holding in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), does not apply to examination.

Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00204, Paper 19 (May 23, 2016) (informative as to section II.B)

This decision determines that the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that a reference was publicly available because the record included only a district court joint statement of uncontested facts identifying the reference as a printed publication. The joint statement did not involve the Petitioner and expressly indicated that it was only for purposes of the district court litigation.

Seabery North America Inc. v. Lincoln Global, Inc., IPR2016-00840, Paper 11 (Oct. 6, 2016) (informative as to section II.A.i)

This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a reference was publicly available, where the record included testimony that the reference was deposited in a university library, indexed and available for retrieval by the public, and that reprints of the reference bear a copyright and publication date.

Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 (June 5, 2018) (informative as to section III.C.1)

This decision determines that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that a drug package insert was publicly available, where the record included a screenshot of an archived FDA webpage from the Internet Archive and testimony from a medical doctor describing the use and accessibility of information on the FDA’s webpage.

In-Depth Geophysical, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Company, IPR2019-00849, Paper 14 (Sept. 6, 2019) (informative as to section I.E)

This decision determines that the Petitioner did not sufficiently show that a conference paper was publicly accessible because the paper’s copyright date and date stamp were insufficient to show that the paper was actually disseminated prior to the date of the conference, or otherwise available to interested persons of ordinary skill in the art.