The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were updated effective December 1, 2015. Key changes include:
- Forms like the patent infringement complaint form were eliminated. Pleading standards were not altered, though legislation could heighten them.
- The time limit to serve defendants was shortened from 120 to 90 days.
- Rule 26 on the scope of discovery was rephrased to focus on relevance, proportionality, and that discovery need not be admissible to be discoverable.
- Rules regarding the timing of Rule 34 requests and responses were adjusted. Objections to requests must now state if materials are being withheld.
- Rule 37 on sanctions for lost ESI was amended to address prejudice and
The presentation discusses the different techniques for speeding up examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics covered in this presentation include petitions to make special, accelerated examination, prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), and the First Action Interview Pilot Program. In addition, some different filing scenarios using these techniques are discussed.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
The presentation discusses techniques for speeding up the issuance of patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The presentation focuses on the newly implemented Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Program which allows applicants to submit Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) without the expense and delay of submitting a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The presentation discusses requirements of the program as well as illustrates possible outcomes using the QPIDS.
Topics covered: America Invents Act
Effective Dates
Major Changes to 102 & 103
Derivation Proceedings
Post Grant Review
Citation of Art
Prior Use Defense
Miscellaneous Provisions
The presentation discusses the different techniques for speeding up examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Topics covered in this presentation include petitions to make special, accelerated examination, prioritized examination, Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), and the First Action Interview Pilot Program. In addition, some different filing scenarios using these techniques are discussed.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
The presentation discusses techniques for speeding up the issuance of patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The presentation focuses on the newly implemented Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Program which allows applicants to submit Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) without the expense and delay of submitting a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The presentation discusses requirements of the program as well as illustrates possible outcomes using the QPIDS.
Topics covered: America Invents Act
Effective Dates
Major Changes to 102 & 103
Derivation Proceedings
Post Grant Review
Citation of Art
Prior Use Defense
Miscellaneous Provisions
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Attorneys David Schmidt, Ph.D., Heungsoo Choi, and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota presented a detailed webinar focusing on Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Speed of Prosecution at the USPTO.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Partners Mauricio Uribe, David Schmidt and Vlad Teplitskiy presented a webinar focused on strategic considerations in controlling speed of prosecution in USPTO.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent news from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The USPTO continues to revise its manuals for trademark practice (TMEP and TBMP) on a rolling basis, and has issued new rules and guidance on certain specific types of trademarks, such as collective marks and repeating patterns. The TTAB has decided that it will presume that, between a manufacture and an exclusive distributor, the manufacture owns the mark, subject to rebuttal (UVeritech v. Amax Lighting). Another TTAB case addresses the interaction between the courts and the USPTO, where the TTAB refused to vacate a decision even though the parties later settled the case while on appeal (University of Alabama v. Pitts).
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Attorneys David Schmidt, Ph.D., Heungsoo Choi, and Of Counsel Hironori Kubota presented a detailed webinar focusing on Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Speed of Prosecution at the USPTO.
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations in Controlling the Sp...Jason Rabuy
Partners Mauricio Uribe, David Schmidt and Vlad Teplitskiy presented a webinar focused on strategic considerations in controlling speed of prosecution in USPTO.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent news from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and decisions from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The USPTO continues to revise its manuals for trademark practice (TMEP and TBMP) on a rolling basis, and has issued new rules and guidance on certain specific types of trademarks, such as collective marks and repeating patterns. The TTAB has decided that it will presume that, between a manufacture and an exclusive distributor, the manufacture owns the mark, subject to rebuttal (UVeritech v. Amax Lighting). Another TTAB case addresses the interaction between the courts and the USPTO, where the TTAB refused to vacate a decision even though the parties later settled the case while on appeal (University of Alabama v. Pitts).
This presentation discusses the nuts and bolts of filing complaints as well as the elements required to file a UDRP action. In addition, the presentation provides an overview of the UDRP process and practical tips on how to handle the UDRP and URS processes.
July’s practice group lunch included an overview of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court addressed a number of patent law topics this year, including the standard of review for patent claim construction (Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz), royalties on expired patents (Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises), and defenses to claims of induced infringement (Commil v. Cisco). The initial wave of appeals in post-issuance proceedings provided by the America Invents Act are now being decided by the Federal Circuit. These include cases involving whether the decision to institute is reviewable (In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies) and discussion of the claim construction standards that apply (Microsoft v. Proxyconn). The relationship between administrative challenges and related litigation is also an evolving area (ePlus v. Lawson Software).
Are There Limits to e-Discovery? Key Takeaways from Recent Decisions on e-Dis...BoyarMiller
Recently, cases exploring the limits of electronic discovery are percolating to the highest courts in both the state and federal systems. As of late, courts have focused on proportionality. This presentation by BoyarMiller attorney Kasi Chadwick explores those decisions and their implications in light of the rules of civil procedure.
Implications of 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureWinston & Strawn LLP
During this eLunch, we reviewed the practical implications of the upcoming changes to Rule 26(b) regarding the scope of relevance and proportionality and also focused on the new national uniform standard under Rule 37(e) for the implementation of curative measures and/or sanctions for the failure to preserve relevant electronically stored information.
This interactive webinar was presented by Winston & Strawn eDiscovery & information governance practice chair John Rosenthal and senior eDiscovery attorney Christopher Costello. Mr. Rosenthal was intimately involved in the rules amendment process and testified before the Advisory Committee on several occasions.
Partners Mauricio and Jason Jardine presented a virtual discussion focusing on strategic considerations for patent prosecution in the United States in view of the statutory requirements of Section 101. Leveraging years of focused prosecution practice, Knobbe Martens practitioners will provide insights related to the statutory requirements and best practices for effective patent prosecution
Topics covered in this month’s Patent Prosecution Group Luncheon include a discussion of the USPTO proposed rules for implementing the America Invents Act (AIA) with respect o the new first-to-file standard for applications, submissions to remove references based on common ownership or origination from inventor, and proposed post-AIA examination guidelines. The group also discussed newly available functionality in Google Patents, including a new “prior art finder” tool for automatically locating prior art references.
Webcast Slides--Gibson Dunn 2012 Year-End Report and Hot TopicsGareth Evans
These are the slides from our Webcast on the Gibson Dunn 2012 E-Discovery Year-End Report. Watch for our 2013 Mid-Year E-Discovery Report around the end of June.
Marta Paul spoke on recent developments in US trademark law at the August practice group lunch. Topics included the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam on “disparaging” trademarks, as well as how the USPTO is handling similar parts of the trademark statute in the wake of the decision. More news from the USPTO included a new examination guideline on “merely informational matter” and recent cases from the TTAB. Finally, Marta discussed a recent precedential decision from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit, In re I.AM.SYMBOLIC, LLC, involving likelihood of confusion and the effect of subject matter limitations in the identifications of goods or services used in trademark applications.
Topics covered in this patent prosecution lunch presentation include information about newly appointed Federal Circuit Judge Kara Stoll and the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. In addition, the presentation describes recent problems of accessing Private PAIR/EFS Web using the Google Chrome browser as well as how to change an entity size in Private PAIR. It also discusses the new Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot program as well as the Collaborative Search Pilot Programs (CSP) between the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Some recent decisions concerning divisional applications and their impact on the obviousness type double patenting rejections along with patent term adjustment are further analyzed.
The following presentation describes a recently passed, and soon to be signed, Indiana law regarding how to address the problem of bad-faith assertions of patent infringement by patent assertion entities, sometimes referred to as "patent trolls." The law provides a definition of what constitutes bad faith assertion of patent infringement as well as gives guidance on basic information that is required for patent cease and desist or demand letters. It also provides procedures for having the entity post a pre-trial bond and/or be subject to damages or other remedies for bad faith assertion of patent infringement.
The presentation provides some background information about intellectual property as related to businesses and how the intellectual property can be used as a security interest or collateral for obtaining financing for businesses.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxpatrons legal
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
2. Forms Abrogated / Pleading Standards?
• Rule 84 and Forms, including Form 18 (patent
infringement complaint), eliminated.
• Pleading direct infringement must satisfy
Twombly?
– Indirect infringement already required this. See
In re Bill of Lading (FC 2012).
– BUT Rules Committee Comment: “The
abrogation of Rule 84 does not alter existing
pleading standards or otherwise change the
requirements of Civil Rule 8.”
• (Pending “reform” legislation would heighten
pleading standards in other ways.)
4. Time Limit for Service
• Rule 4(m) amended regarding dismissal
• Was: 120 days
• Now: 90 days
5. Rule 26 Scope, Proportionality Rephrased
• Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to
the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
6. Rule 26 Scope, Proportionality Rephrased
• “reasonably calculated to lead” language
removed
7. Rule 26 Timing
• Can deliver Rule 34 Requests 21 days after
summons and complaint.
• BUT: Considered served (for response time)
at Rule 26(f) conference
• (Corresponding amendment to Rule 34)
8. Rule 34
• Objections
– Must state whether any responsive materials are
being withheld.
• Time for Production
– “no later than the time for inspection specified in
the request
or
– another reasonable time specified in the
response.”
9. Rule 37 and ESI
• Rule 37(e) Amended
• Was: sanctions for failure to preserve ESI (lost
in routine operations) only for exceptional
circumstances
• Now:
– Court can order “measures… necessary to cure
prejudice” if:
Should have been preserved
Lost because failure to take reasonable steps; and
Cannot be restored/replaced
– Intent to deprive = presumption of unfavorable
info; jury instruction; or dismissal/default.