Standard For Amending Claims In IPR May Need To Change

Law360, New York (March 13, 2014, 1:08 PM EDT) -- The Idle Free decision[1] denied the patent owner’s motion to amend claims on the ground that the patent owner had not proven the patentability of the claims over the prior art. Remarkably, the decision makes no reference to the petitioner’s proofs on the issue, but rather denies the motion solely on the basis of perceived deficiencies in the patent owner’s showing of patentability. Under Idle Free, not only is the burden on the patent owner to prove patentability of its amended claims, but “general patentability over...
To view the full article, register now.