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.

2023년 2월 15일, 미국 연방순회항소법원은 웨어러블 피트니스 기기에 대한 특허 침해 분쟁을 다룬 키네틱(KEYnetik, Inc.) 대 삼성전자(Samsung Electronics Co.) 사건에 대한 판결을 내렸습니다. 이 결정은 소프트웨어 및 컴퓨터 구현 발명과 관련된 명백성 문제에 대한 지침을 제공합니다.

2023년 1월 29일, 미국의 미국 특허청에 해당하는 중국 국가지식산권국(CNIPA)은 더 이상 실물 특허 증명서를 발급하지 않겠다고 발표했습니다.

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP의 법률 사무소는 세 명의 새로운 변호사가 회사에 합류했음을 발표하게 된 것을 기쁘게 생각합니다.

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP는 National Council on Patent Practicum ( "NCPP")이 PKH를 "다양성 챔피언"으로 인정했음을 발표하게 된 것을 기쁘게 생각합니다. PKH는 Meta, IBM, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Vable LLP, Eaton 등과 함께 다양성 챔피언으로 인정 받고 있습니다.

2022년 9월 6일, Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP 변호사 Kenny Knox는 미국의 징벌적 손해배상에 대해 국제상표협회("INTA") 회원들과 이야기를 나눴습니다.

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP 변호사 Jason Perilla와 Kenny Knox는 지적 재산권 법 영역에서의 원격 근무 및 자동화에 관한 최근 Law360 기사에서 인용되었습니다.

Jason Perilla, Kenny Knox 및 Thomas Hildebrandt 변호사는 Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP의 설립을 발표했습니다.

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).