- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business 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
- Entertainment and Media Litigation
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Fiduciary Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
December 4, 2023Robins Kaplan LLP Announces 2024 Partners
-
November 30, 2023U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms PTAB Decision in Favor of Robins Kaplan Client Collegium
-
November 20, 2023Kellie Lerner Named Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Taser And Body Camera Antitrust Litigation
-
December 12, 2023Ethics Check-In! – USPTO Insight and Practical Implications of AI
-
January 4, 2024 | January 9, 2024 | January 11, 2024Payment Card Settlement for U.S. Merchants
-
Fall 2023All Is Not Lost: Personal Jurisdiction in a Post-BMS World
-
November 10, 2023E-Commerce Platform Liability for Trademark Infringement
-
November 8, 2023Generative Artificial Intelligence, LLMs, And Fair Use After Warhol: The Copyright Office and Accountability
-
September 16, 2022Uber Company Systems Compromised by Widespread Cyber Hack
-
September 15, 2022US Averts Rail Workers Strike With Last-Minute Tentative Deal
-
September 14, 2022Hotter-Than-Expected August Inflation Prompts Massive Wall Street Selloff
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
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.