Blogs, Commentary & News

Motions to Amend – The Federal Circuit discusses the Who (has the Burden), What (Prior Art needs to be distinguished), and How (does the PTAB need to address secondary considerations)

02/20/2016

In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, decided February 11, 2016, the Federal Circuit clarified the requirements for proposing substitute claims in IPR proceedings. In the IPR proceeding subject to the appeal, the PTAB granted Nike’s motion to cancel claims 1-46, but denied its motion to substitute claims 47-50 finding that Nike failed to establish patentabilty […]