{"id":836,"date":"2021-03-21T11:37:18","date_gmt":"2021-03-21T11:37:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/?p=836"},"modified":"2022-07-28T06:36:22","modified_gmt":"2022-07-28T06:36:22","slug":"tpl-blog-patents-ptab-ipr-ptabcast-aqua-pto","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/tpl-blog-patents-ptab-ipr-ptabcast-aqua-pto\/","title":{"rendered":"IPR PTABCast: Aqua Products V. PTO"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"Podcast\"><iframe style=\"border: none;\" src=\"\/\/html5-player.libsyn.com\/embed\/episode\/id\/5987993\/height\/360\/width\/640\/theme\/standard\/autonext\/no\/thumbnail\/yes\/autoplay\/no\/preload\/no\/no_addthis\/no\/direction\/backward\/\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Summary:<\/strong> Patent Owners Can Breathe (A Little) Easier.<\/p>\n<p>In IPR (inter partes review), a patent is being attacked is invalid. One move a patent owner can make is to narrow some claims so they are not found invalid. Until now, the PTO made this very difficult by requiring the patent owner to prove the narrower claims are patentable. Now, the Federal Circuit stepped in and shifts that heavy burden off of the patent owner and on to the petitioner who is challenging the patent. This is good news!<\/p>\n<p><strong>Questions?<\/strong> If you would like to get your patent questions answered and be part of the show, Thompson Patent Law has a LIVE complimentary webinar called Ask The Patent Attorney. Call the number below and reserve your spot in this LIVE teaching event.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Summary: Patent Owners Can Breathe (A Little) Easier. In IPR (inter partes review), a patent is being attacked is invalid. One move a patent owner can make is to narrow some claims so they are not found invalid. Until now, the PTO made this very difficult by requiring the patent owner to prove the narrower [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1528,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-836","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ipr-ptabcast"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=836"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/836\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":837,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/836\/revisions\/837"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1528"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}