Current Developments at the PTAB

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board

August 7, 2017

This page presents noteworthy cases and developments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, pertinent rulemaking packages, and court decisions affecting the PTAB.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. De C.V., No. 2016‑1966 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2017) (Lourie (author), Reyna, Wallach (dissenting in part), JJ.). In an appeal from inter partes reexamination, the Federal Circuit held that the Board’s reliance upon a reference neither addressed or mentioned by the examiner, to negate a claim of unexpected results, constituted a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to permit the patent owner to respond. Slip op. at 14–18.

Pers. Audio, LLC v. Elec. Frontier Found., No. 2016‑1123 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2017) (Newman (author), Clevenger, O’Malley, JJ.). While one must have Article III standing to bring an appeal in federal court from a USPTO proceeding, a party to that proceeding need not have Article III standing to appear in court and defend the agency’s decision. Slip op. at 6–7.

*     *     *

Practice Manual for the PTAB

Joel is the author of The Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Advocacy and Practice. To purchase the book, please visit Publishers’ Graphics Bookstore.