Einblicke in die Firma
PKH begrüsst drei neue Anwälte
Die Anwaltskanzlei Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP freut sich, die Aufnahme von drei neuen Anwälten in die Kanzlei bekannt zu geben.
PKH wird von NCPP als Diversity Champion gewürdigt
Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP freut sich bekannt zu geben, dass der National Council on Patent Practicum ("NCPP") PKH als "Diversity Champion" anerkannt hat. PKH schließt sich damit Meta, IBM, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Venable LLP, Eaton und anderen Unternehmen an, die als "Diversity Champion" ausgezeichnet wurden.
Kenny Knox spricht am INTA-Rundtisch
Am 6. September 2022 sprach Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP-Anwalt Kenny Knox mit Mitgliedern der International Trademark Association (INTA") über Strafschadenersatz in den Vereinigten Staaten.
Partner Perilla und Knox werden von Law360 zum Thema Automatisierung und Fernarbeit im IP zitiert
Die Anwälte von Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Jason Perilla und Kenny Knox, wurden in einem aktuellen Law360-Artikel über Fernarbeit und Automatisierung im Bereich des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes zitiert.
Gründung von Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP
Die Anwälte Jason Perilla, Kenny Knox und Thomas Hildebrandt gaben die Gründung von Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP bekannt.
Next-Day Delivery Found to Constitute Sufficient Service of a CBM Petition
Unless the parties agree otherwise, service of a CBM petition may be by USPS Priority Mail Express or “by means at least as fast and reliable” as Priority Mail Express. 37 C.F.R. § 42.205(b). Other AIA Trial rules regarding the service of documents apply the same standard.
Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB’s Validity Finding Based On Arguments the Patent Owner Did Not Raise
The Federal Circuit held in FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC that the PTAB did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act when it found that the Petitioner failed to prove a claim obvious based on arguments the Patent Owner had not previously raised.
USPTO Proposes Changes to AIA Trial Rules
The USPTO has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with three proposed amendments to the AIA trial rules. The Office is proposing to amend 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108(a) and 42.208(a) to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu holding that the former practice of partial institutions was improper.
Recent Precedential PTAB Decisions - May 2019
The Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel has been hard at work designating several decisions as precedential. According to the Board’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), the Precedential Opinion Panel issues a precedential decision only for issues of exceptional importance involving policy or procedure. A precedential decision is binding Board authority in matters involving similar facts or issues.
IPR Instituted on Art Considered During Examination After Finding the Examiner Misunderstood the Reference
Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has the discretion to deny an IPR petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” were presented during prosecution or in another proceeding. As discussed in an earlier post, the Board may weigh several factors when determining whether to exercise its discretion and deny an IPR petition under § 325(d).