Insights: Alerts Rule Changes for Post Grant Practice
The Patent Office has decided to make several rule changes that will be unveiled in three phases, as announced by Commissioner Michele Lee said in a March 27, 2015 blog post: http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for .
The immediate rule changes announced increase the page limits for motions to amend and reply briefs from 15 to 25 pages.
The additional rules being considered would address the following:
- Modifications to the motion to amend process
- Adjustments to the allowable evidence in the patent owner preliminary response
- Clarification of the claim construction standard as applied to expired patents
- Adjustments to the scope of additional discovery
- How to handle multiple proceedings involving the same patent
- Use of live testimony at oral hearing
- A rule 11 type certification for filings
- No need for prior art representation as to the patentability of the narrowed amended claims beyond the art of record before the Office.
- Discovery re the real-party-in-interest (RPI)
- Pilot program with single judge to decide institution, then 2 additional judges added
Related People
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
