{"id":920,"date":"2018-01-12T15:26:14","date_gmt":"2018-01-12T21:26:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/63.247.142.118\/?p=920"},"modified":"2019-06-03T16:48:55","modified_gmt":"2019-06-03T21:48:55","slug":"more-ptab-decisions-resources","status":"publish","type":"ip_blog","link":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/ip_blog\/more-ptab-decisions-resources\/","title":{"rendered":"MORE PTAB DECISIONS &#038; RESOURCES"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Recently, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated two more decisions as Informative. Both involve 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 315(b) regarding the time bar to filing petitions for <em>inter partes <\/em>reviews. The following is a description of the decisions from the USPTO: &nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/IPR2017-01216%20Luvn%20Care%20%28Paper%2013%29.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\"><strong><em>Luv N\u2019 Care, Ltd. v. McGinley<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, IPR2017-01216 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2017) (Paper 13).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In this decision, the Board denied institution after determining that the Petition was not timely filed under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 315(b), because payment was not received by the Office until after the date the Petition was filed. The Board also denied Petitioner\u2019s motion to assign an earlier filing date to the Petition after determining that Petitioner failed to show good cause for waiving the fee requirement. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uspto.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/IPR2014-00360%20Amneal%20%28Paper%2015%29.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer nofollow\"><strong><em>Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc<\/em><\/strong><strong>.,<\/strong><\/a> IPR2014-00360 (PTAB June 27, 2014) (Paper 15).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Recently, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated two more decisions as Informative. Both involve 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 315(b) regarding the time bar to filing petitions for inter partes reviews. The following is a description of the decisions from the USPTO: &nbsp; Luv N\u2019 Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216 (PTAB Sept. 18, 2017) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":921,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","categories":[24],"ip_tags":[],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip_blog\/920"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip_blog"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/ip_blog"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip_blog\/920\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/921"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=920"},{"taxonomy":"ip_tags","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip_tags?post=920"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dunlapcodding.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}