Flying high: PTAB's Pilot Program For One-Judge Reviews
IP ERA|January - February 2017 Issue

The pilot program proposed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a winwin for both patent owners and the PTAB as it offers the former a chance to try one’s case before an objective trial-phase panel, while the latter stands to benefit too as two of three judges who would have been involved in the institution phase of an IPR are now free to look into other matters…

Flying high: PTAB's Pilot Program For One-Judge Reviews

The pilot program proposed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for a single judge to evaluate an inter partes review (IPR) petition has the potential to address several perceived problems with the current IPR process.

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice seeking comments on a potential pilot program aimed at addressing patent owners’ concerns of bias surrounding IPR proceedings and easing the strain on the PTAB’s resources. Currently, a three-judge panel reviews a petition for an IPR for compliance with statutory requirements. If the panel decides to institute a review of a challenged patent, the same judges preside over the remainder of the IPR proceeding.

In a Federal Register notice, the USPTO proposed a different structure. Specifically, under a pilot program, a single judge would be responsible for evaluating petitions and deciding whether to institute a review. In the event a review is instituted, two additional judges would join the original judge to form a three-judge panel to preside over the remainder of the proceeding.

When the one-judge institution proposal was floated initially, USPTO Director Michelle Lee cited complaints of bias by patent owners as one impetus. Understanding this concern requires some familiarity with the distinct phases of an IPR proceeding and an appreciation for the hurdle a petitioner must clear to advance from one phase to the next.

Two Steps

This story is from the January - February 2017 Issue edition of IP ERA.

Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 8,500+ magazines and newspapers.

This story is from the January - February 2017 Issue edition of IP ERA.

Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 8,500+ magazines and newspapers.

MORE STORIES FROM IP ERAView All
Bioethics vis-a-vis Biosimilars
IP ERA

Bioethics vis-a-vis Biosimilars

With India moving from strength to strength in establishment of biosimilars as the current and next step of affordable healthcare, the need of the hour is to understand the regulatory guidelines and their implementation as per current requirements.

time-read
4 mins  |
November - December 2016
Tackling Online Employment Frauds
IP ERA

Tackling Online Employment Frauds

Efforts need to be taken at all levels – enforcement agencies, government institutions, corporations and the Internet users themselves – to curb this rising menace.

time-read
6 mins  |
November - December 2016
Google V. Equustek Solutions: The Cost of Doing Business?
IP ERA

Google V. Equustek Solutions: The Cost of Doing Business?

Whether this is a simple case of the cost of doing business or just another case of insisting that Internet service providers and search engines become Internet police, there should be better parameters in place to protect the freedom of speech and prevent the abuse of the system.

time-read
8 mins  |
January - February 2017 Issue
Germany Hailed as an Arena for Solving International Patent Disputes
IP ERA

Germany Hailed as an Arena for Solving International Patent Disputes

Indian companies can enforce patents in Germany not only in cases where the opponent operates in Germany but also in cases where activities of the opponent have bearing on Germany. Even in a litigation where Germany is only marginally affected, Indian patentees may have a standing in Germany and be able to sue opponents from foreign countries such as USA, Japan, China and even India.

time-read
6 mins  |
November - December 2016
Playing the Balancing Game
IP ERA

Playing the Balancing Game

In order to attract foreign investment and encourage technology transfer, the government needs to take both consumers’ and private sector’s interests into account. There is no doubt that a balance is needed such that exclusive rights are protected but at the same time, this ‘should not’ lead to abuse of dominant position by the rights’ holder.

time-read
6 mins  |
November - December 2016
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: An Overview
IP ERA

Biological Diversity Act, 2002: An Overview

A look at the provisions and regulations issued under this Act that came into force entirely in 2004 mainly to give effect to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity held at Rio De Janeiro in 1992.

time-read
7 mins  |
January - February 2017 Issue
Flying high: PTAB's Pilot Program For One-Judge Reviews
IP ERA

Flying high: PTAB's Pilot Program For One-Judge Reviews

The pilot program proposed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a winwin for both patent owners and the PTAB as it offers the former a chance to try one’s case before an objective trial-phase panel, while the latter stands to benefit too as two of three judges who would have been involved in the institution phase of an IPR are now free to look into other matters…

time-read
5 mins  |
January - February 2017 Issue
IP-led Innovation As Driver Of Indian Economy: The Role Of Businesses
IP ERA

IP-led Innovation As Driver Of Indian Economy: The Role Of Businesses

Given the new policy initiatives by the Government of India that provide significant opportunity, Indian companies must develop IP-based innovative products and solutions that lead to business and economic growth.

time-read
8 mins  |
January - February 2017 Issue