Welcome to Atlanta, the vibrant capital city of Georgia, known for its rich history, diverse culture, and southern charm. This travel guide will provide you with essential information and recommendations to make the most of your visit during the 2024 conference in Atlanta.

This week marks the first anniversary of the founding of Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP. PKH was launched in March 2022 by three lawyers with decades of patent, trademark, and other intellectual property law experience. Today, PKH includes nine attorneys and a staff of seasoned paralegals and docketing personnel. PKH is focused on providing top-tier intellectual property services and growing a strong team of exceptional attorneys and staff.

Am 15. Februar 2023 hat das Bundesberufungsgericht eine Entscheidung in der Rechtssache KEYnetik, Inc. gegen Samsung Electronics Co. veröffentlicht, in der es um einen Patentverletzungsstreit über tragbare Fitnessgeräte ging. Die Entscheidung gibt Hinweise zu Offensichtlichkeitsfragen im Zusammenhang mit Software und computerimplementierten Erfindungen.

Am 29. Januar 2023 kündigte die China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), das chinesische Pendant zum United States Patent and Trademark Office in den USA, an, dass sie keine physischen Patentzertifikate mehr ausstellen wird.

Die Anwaltskanzlei Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP freut sich, die Aufnahme von drei neuen Anwälten in die Kanzlei bekannt zu geben.

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.

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.

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.

Die Anwälte Jason Perilla, Kenny Knox und Thomas Hildebrandt gaben die Gründung von Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP bekannt.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).