- Affirmative Recovery
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Childhood Sexual Abuse Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
July 31, 2020Patrick Arenz and Aaron Fahrenkrog named to Benchmark Litigation 40 & Under Hot List
-
July 27, 2020Christine Yun Sauer Shortlisted for Chambers Diversity and Inclusion Awards
-
July 23, 2020Kate Jaycox Recognized for Service to American Association for Justice
-
August 7-12, 2020Minnesota CLE The Law of the Smart Phone Webcast Series
-
August 14, 2020Notable Recent & Pending Class Action Cases in the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS
-
August 18, 2020Discovering a Hidden Revenue Stream: Recoveries from Antitrust Class Action Settlements in Economic Downturn
-
Summer 2020ANDA Approvals
-
Summer 2020ANDA Litigation Settlements
-
Summer 2020Generic Launches 505(b)(2)
Whirlpool Effect: What if Petitioners Must Prove Proposed Amended Claims Are Unpatentable in IPRs?
September 21, 2016
Soon, the Federal Circuit will decide whether the patent owner or the petitioner bears the burden to prove whether proposed substitute claims in an inter partes review (IPR) are patentable or unpatentable. Currently, the patent owner bears the burden to prove patentability. However, if the Federal Circuit were to change who bears the burden, there could be significant unintended consequences. This article considers some potential issues that could arise if the burden is shifted to the petitioner.
Copyright © 2016 by the Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.