AIA Blog

USPTO Discusses Key Aspects of New Administrative Patent Trials

From: Chief Judge James Donald Smith, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Thank you to the intellectual property community for your feedback thus far about our new administrative trial proposed rules for the inter partes review (IPR), post grant review (PGR), covered business method review, and derivation provisions of the America Invents Act.  From the comments we have received, a few issues have surfaced with some regularity.  For example, we have received questions and input regarding (i) the standards to trigger inter partes and post grant reviews, (ii) the real party in interest requirement for an IPR/PGR petitioner, (iii) timing for completion of the new trials, (iv) the pro hac vice admission of non-registered practitioners, and (v) the definition of the term “technological invention.”  I thought it would be helpful to explain more about the Agency’s rationale for the structure of the proposed rules on these topics, and hence, we have prepared a “blog extravaganza” for your consideration:

• Standards to Trigger an Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review
• Real Party in Interest
• Timing to Complete an Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, and Covered Business Method Review
• Pro Hac Vice Admission to Practice before the Board for New Administrative Patent Trial
• Technological Invention Definition

Lastly, please note that the comment period for the new administrative trial proposed rules closes on April 9 and 10, 2012.  I encourage you to submit your positive feedback and constructive suggestions to the Agency by then; we are eager to hear from you.

Posted at 12:00AM Apr 06, 2012 in Rulemaking  |