Fish & Richardson Named #1 PTAB Law Firm in the U.S. for 2016 by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine

February 17, 2017

Fish & Richardson is the #1 law firm at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for 2016 according to Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) magazine and its latest PTAB survey. Fish represented petitioners and respondents in 207 proceedings — handling 34 more PTAB cases overall than its closest competitor. Fish is also the #1 most active firm representing petitioners at the PTAB for the third year in a row, with 125 petitions filed — 58 more petitions than the second place firm on this list.

Karl Renner Quoted in Law360 Article, “Once A Mystery, PTAB Remands Start To Take Shape”

February 10, 2017

Karl Renner (Principal) was recently quoted in Law360 article, “Once A Mystery, PTAB Remands Start To Take Shape” on February 9, 2017.

Fish & Richardson Named 2016’s Top Firm in the PTAB

February 3, 2017

In recently published analysis from Docket Navigator, Fish & Richardson is listed as the top firm in the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) in 2016. Fish & Richardson represented clients in over 200 PTAB proceedings. In this analysis, law firms and corporate legal departments were measured by the number of IPR (inter partes review), CBM (covered business method), and PGR (post-grant review) proceedings handled.

Dorothy Whelan Quoted in Law360 Article “Patent Board’s Immunity Finding A Win For State Universities”

January 30, 2017

Dorothy Whelan (Principal) was quoted in Law360 article, “Patent Board’s Immunity Finding A Win For State Universities” on January 27, 2017.

Patent Challengers Must Show Harm to Appeal Final PTAB Decisions

January 20, 2017

The Federal Circuit for the first time addressed the legal standard for demonstrating standing in an appeal from a final agency decision, such as an inter partes review (IPR) decision.  Phigenix, Inc.  v.  ImmunoGen, Inc., 2017 WL 74762 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017).  The court dismissed an appeal from an adverse IPR decision on the grounds that appellant Phigenix lacked standing because it failed to meet its burden to show injury in fact.  The holding makes clear that non-practicing entities (NPEs)—and even companies like Phigenix falling somewhere in-between a fully operating company and an NPE—will be challenged to establish standing for appellate review.

Page 1 of 2312345...Last »