Aperçu de l'entreprise
Kenny Knox s'exprime lors d'une table ronde de l'INTA
Le 6 septembre 2022, Kenny Knox, avocat du cabinet Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, s'est adressé aux membres de l'International Trademark Association ("INTA") au sujet des dommages-intérêts punitifs aux États-Unis.
Les associés Perilla et Knox cités par Law360 à propos de l'automatisation et du travail à distance dans le domaine de la PI
Les avocats de Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP, Jason Perilla et Kenny Knox, ont été cités dans un article récent de Law360 concernant le travail à distance et l'automatisation dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle.
Création de Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP
Les avocats Jason Perilla, Kenny Knox et Thomas Hildebrandt ont annoncé la création de Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP.
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).