Contributor Page
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
Email  |  Website  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +1 312 474 6300
Fax: +1 312 474 0448
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
IL 60606-6357
United States
By Matthew R. Carey
In a split opinion in Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Whirlpool Corporation, the Federal Circuit has again overturned a final written decision issued by the PTAB determining that challenged claims...
By Michael Weiner
Accordingly, on remand of this case and in other IPRs, absent additional rulemaking the PTAB cannot place the burden of persuasion on patent owners.
By Sandip H. Patel
An eleven-judge en banc panel of the Federal Circuit issued its long awaited decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal 2015-1777, on October 4, 2017, ...
By Heather R. Kissling
Recent Federal Circuit decisions reversing or remanding PTAB holdings of obviousness have faulted the Board for failing to clearly articulate its reasoning.
By Michael Weiner
PTAB rules prohibit raising new arguments in a reply brief, but it can be difficult to distinguish between an improper reply argument and a proper rebuttal.
By Nelson M. Rosario
Until solutions to usability, interoperability, scalability, and privacy are developed, widespread adoption will be hampered.
By Sandip H. Patel
Joe Matal, interim director of the Patent Office, addressed the IPO's 45th Annual Meeting on September 19, 2017, in San Francisco.
By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D.
If a Petitioner does not timely file the required petition fee, an IPR will not be instituted.
By Gregory J. Chinlund
Prohibiting federal registration for "disparaging" marks constitutes viewpoint discrimination and is unconstitutional says the Supreme Court.
By Ryan Phelan
The Skky decision falls within the body of law regarding "rebutting" a means-plus-function presumption, although the Skky court chose not to use that specific language.
By Sharon Sintich
The STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation's Growth and Economic Resilience) Patents Act of 2017 was recently introduced in the Senate.
By Kate Nuehring Su
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in In re Chudik, Appeal 2016-2673 offers patent practitioners a cautionary tale and good teaching points about the propriety of negative limitations and functional claim language.
By Heather R. Kissling
This proceeding also illustrates an effective use of IPR to cut short a more expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.
By Michael Weiner
The court may take the position that including a claim that recites a transfer of money is sufficient for CBM eligibility, but Unwired Planet and this case did not specifically address that issue.
By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D.
When a patent is co-owned by a state university and another party, an IPR may proceed against the remaining party even after the state university co-owner has been determined to have sovereign immunity...