This week marks the first anniversary of the founding of Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP. PKH was launched in March 2022 by three lawyers with decades of patent, trademark, and other intellectual property law experience. Today, PKH includes nine attorneys and a staff of seasoned paralegals and docketing personnel. PKH is focused on providing top-tier intellectual property services and growing a strong team of exceptional attorneys and staff.

2023年2月15日、連邦巡回控訴裁判所は、ウェアラブルフィットネス機器に関する特許権侵害紛争を扱ったKEYnetik, Inc.この判決は、ソフトウェアやコンピュータで実装された発明に関連する自明性の問題についてのガイダンスを提供するものである。

2023年1月29日、米国の米国特許商標庁に相当する中国の国家知識産権局（CNIPA）は、物理的な特許証の発行を終了すると発表しました。

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLPでは、新たに3名の弁護士が入所しましたのでお知らせします。

ペリラ ノックス アンド ヒルデブラント法律事務所は、米国特許実務評議会（NCPP）より、PKHが "ダイバーシティ・チャンピオン "として認定されたことをお知らせします。PKHは、Meta、IBM、JPMorgan Chase & Co.、Venable LLP、Eatonなどと共に、ダイバーシティチャンピオンに認定されました。

2022年9月6日、Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLPの弁護士Kenny Knoxは、国際商標協会（以下、INTA）のメンバーと米国における懲罰的損害賠償について講演を行いました。

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLPの弁護士Jason PerillaとKenny Knoxが、知的財産法の領域におけるリモートワークとオートメーションに関する最近のLaw360の記事で引用されました。

Jason Perilla弁護士、Kenny Knox弁護士、Thomas Hildebrandt弁護士は、Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLPを設立したことを発表しました。

Unless the parties agree otherwise, service of a CBM petition may be by USPS Priority Mail Express or “by means at least as fast and reliable” as Priority Mail Express. 37 C.F.R. § 42.205(b). Other AIA Trial rules regarding the service of documents apply the same standard.

The Federal Circuit held in FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC that the PTAB did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act when it found that the Petitioner failed to prove a claim obvious based on arguments the Patent Owner had not previously raised.

The USPTO has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with three proposed amendments to the AIA trial rules. The Office is proposing to amend 37 C.F.R. §§  42.108(a) and 42.208(a) to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu holding that the former practice of partial institutions was improper.

The Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel has been hard at work designating several decisions as precedential. According to the Board’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), the Precedential Opinion Panel issues a precedential decision only for issues of exceptional importance involving policy or procedure. A precedential decision is binding Board authority in matters involving similar facts or issues.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has the discretion to deny an IPR petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” were presented during prosecution or in another proceeding. As discussed in an earlier post, the Board may weigh several factors when determining whether to exercise its discretion and deny an IPR petition under § 325(d).