Alpharetta, Georgia, known for its vibrant community and thriving business environment, has been a breeding ground for innovation and entrepreneurship. This picturesque city, located just north of Atlanta, has produced several brilliant minds who have left an indelible mark on the world through their groundbreaking inventions…

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.

Le 15 février 2023, la Cour d'appel du circuit fédéral a rendu une décision dans l'affaire KEYnetik, Inc. c. Samsung Electronics Co. qui portait sur un litige en matière de contrefaçon de brevet concernant des appareils de fitness portables. La décision fournit des orientations sur les questions d'évidence liées aux inventions mises en œuvre par logiciel et par ordinateur.

Le 29 janvier 2023, l'Administration nationale de la propriété intellectuelle de Chine (CNIPA), l'équivalent chinois de l'Office des brevets et des marques des États-Unis, a annoncé qu'elle ne délivrerait plus de certificats de brevet physiques.

Le cabinet d'avocats Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP a le plaisir d'annoncer que trois nouveaux avocats ont rejoint le cabinet.

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP est heureux d'annoncer que le National Council on Patent Practicum ("NCPP") a reconnu PKH comme un "champion de la diversité". PKH rejoint ainsi des entreprises comme Meta, IBM, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Venable LLP, Eaton, entre autres, en étant reconnu comme un champion de la diversité.

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 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.

Les avocats Jason Perilla, Kenny Knox et Thomas Hildebrandt ont annoncé la création de Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP.

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).