Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Stephanie Mishaga
Director Issues Guidance On Use Of AI For Documents Submitted To PTAB
USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued guidance on February 6, 2024 regarding the use of AI in drafting materials submitted to the USPTO's administrative boards, including the PTAB. Of biggest concern in the guidance is the submission of false information to the PTAB possibly generated by AI. In the guidance, Director Vidal discusses certain USPTO Rules that practitioners are required to follow and identifies sanctions for violating same.
Director Issues Guidance on Use of AI for Documents Submitted to PTAB | JD Supra
USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued guidance on February 6, 2024 regarding the use of AI in drafting materials submitted to the USPTO’s administrative boards, including the PTAB. Of biggest concern in the guidance is the submission of false information to the PTAB possibly generated by AI. In the guidance, Director Vidal discusses certain USPTO Rules that practitioners are required to follow and identifies sanctions for violating same.
USPTO Provides Insight On AMPRM Proposals
The USPTO issued an advance notice of proposed rules ("ANPRM") on April 21, 2023 and is requesting comments and feedback from practitioners on proposed, proposed changes at the PTAB. The full ANPRM document is available on the Federal Register website. The ANPRM is being used by the PTAB to gather more information or data about whether certain rules are needed. The PTAB recently hosted a webinar discussing the ANPRM.
USPTO Provides Insight on AMPRM Proposals | JD Supra
The USPTO issued an advance notice of proposed rules (“ANPRM”) on April 21, 2023 and is requesting comments and feedback from practitioners on proposed, proposed changes at the PTAB. The full ANPRM document is available on the Federal Register website. The ANPRM is being used by the PTAB to gather more information or data about whether certain rules are needed. The PTAB recently hosted a webinar discussing the ANPRM.
Disclaimer Made in IPR Not Binding In Same Proceeding | JD Supra
The Federal Circuit recently held, in Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., that a disclaimer in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is not binding on the USPTO in the same proceeding in which the disclaimer is made. Petitioner, Trend Micro, filed three related IPR petitions against Patent Owner, CUPP Cybersecurity, challenging as obvious three CUPP patents directed to mobile device security systems.
Experts and Expert Testimony in PTAB Proceedings | JD Supra
In a recent Boardside Chat webinar, a panel made up of PTAB judges and practicing attorneys discussed the use of experts and expert testimony in American Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. The panelists stressed that well-prepared experts can help a proceeding. But on the flip side, an ill-prepared or evasive expert can damage it. After providing a quick overview of the relevant rules and regulations relating to experts, the panelists dove into discussing hypothetical proceeding situations.
Spoonful Of Commercial Success Overcomes Obviousness Rejection
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently reversed obviousness rejections based on an Applicant demonstrating commercial success of an infant spoon, in Ex Parte Doug Gonterman and Jessica Lineberry. The PTAB found sufficient commercial success in the form of sales data, and that such success was directly attributable to the unique features of the Applicant's product. This success overcame prior art directed to spoons dating back to 1948.
Spoonful of Commercial Success Overcomes Obviousness Rejection | JD Supra
[co-author: Christopher Dorsett]* The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently reversed obviousness rejections based on an Applicant demonstrating commercial success of an infant spoon, in Ex Parte Doug Gonterman and Jessica Lineberry. The PTAB found sufficient commercial success in the form of sales data, and that such success was directly attributable to the unique features of the Applicant’s product. This success overcame prior art directed to spoons dating back to 1948.
PTAB Denies IPR Institutions Without Patent Owner Rebuttal Evidence
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. It is no secret that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) often leverages its discretionary denial powers to deny inter parties review (IPR) petitions. The PTAB has discretionarily denied IPR petitions, for example, due to parallel district court scheduled trials, district court findings of indefiniteness, and overbroad challenges.
PTAB Denies IPR Institutions Without Patent Owner Rebuttal Evidence | JD Supra
It is no secret that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) often leverages its discretionary denial powers to deny inter parties review (IPR) petitions. The PTAB has discretionarily denied IPR petitions, for example, due to parallel district court scheduled trials, district court findings of indefiniteness, and overbroad challenges. Typically, in these cases, the Patent Owner rebuts some of the Petitioner’s evidence of invalidity.
Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Thwart PGRs
United States: Disclaimer Before Institution May Not Thwart PGRs 05 August 2021 by Stephanie Mishaga (San Diego) and Matthew Johnson (Pittsburgh) Jones Day Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. Co-authored by Jianle Wang* In Microsurgical Tech., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ.
Arthrex: Unreviewable APJ Authority Incompatible With Appointments Clause
United States: Arthrex: Unreviewable APJ Authority Incompatible With Appointments Clause 01 July 2021 by Gregory Castanias (Washington, DC) , David Cochran (Washington, DC), Stephanie Mishaga (Washington, DC) and Alex K. Chung (Washington, DC) Jones Day Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. In United States v.
Machine Learning To Evaluate Genetic Data Held To Be Patent Ineligible
United States: Machine Learning To Evaluate Genetic Data Held To Be Patent Ineligible 20 April 2021 by Carl A. Kukkonen III and Stephanie Mishaga Jones Day Your LinkedIn Connections with the authors To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com. The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that certain claims related to genetic inheritance data analysis are patent ineligible.
Machine Learning to Evaluate Genetic Data Held to be Patent Ineligible | JD Supra
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that certain claims related to genetic inheritance data analysis are patent ineligible. The claims at issue sought to protect applying a machine learning model to a number of datasets for haplotype phasing.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Stephanie
Contact Stephanie, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack