March 27, 2018
Authored and Edited by Anthony A. Hartmann; Jason E. Stach
On March 21, 2018, the PTAB instituted its first derivation proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.400 et seq., having denied many petitions over the years. Andersen Corp. v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc., DER2017-00007 (Paper 32). The claims were directed to spacer frame assemblies for windows.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act has replaced interference proceedings with derivation proceedings for patent applications having a claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. The purpose of a derivation proceeding is to determine whether an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application, and whether the earlier application claiming such invention was filed without authorization. See 35 U.S.C. § 135(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.405(b)(2).
The PTAB noted that it was appropriate under the rules for Andersen to assert 22 separate derivations in a single petition. The PTAB determined that there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that each of the 22 inventions was conceived by Andersen’s employee and communicated to GED, and that at least one of Andersen’s claims is the same or substantially the same as GED’s claimed invention.
With this institution, practitioners now have the opportunity to see how the PTAB will apply its procedures in the context of a derivation proceeding.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for December 2023 and January 2024
March 8, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Parody Sneaker Afforded No First Amendment Protection Against Vans’ Trademark Infringement Claims
February 1, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.