This week marks the first anniversary of the founding of Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP. PKH was launched in March 2022 by three lawyers with decades of patent, trademark, and other intellectual property law experience. Today, PKH includes nine attorneys and a staff of seasoned paralegals and docketing personnel. PKH is focused on providing top-tier intellectual property services and growing a strong team of exceptional attorneys and staff.

2023年2月15日，联邦巡回上诉法院发布了KEYnetik, Inc.诉三星电子公司一案的裁决，该案涉及可穿戴健身设备的专利侵权纠纷。该判决为与软件和计算机实现的发明有关的明显性问题提供了指导。

2023年1月29日，中国国家知识产权局（CNIPA），相当于美国的美国专利和商标局，宣布他们将不再颁发实体专利证书。

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP律师事务所很高兴地宣布，有三位新律师加入该事务所。

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP很高兴地宣布，国家专利实践委员会（"NCPP"）已认可PKH为 "多样性冠军"。PKH与Meta、IBM、摩根大通公司、Venable LLP、Eaton等公司一样，被认定为多元化冠军。

2022年9月6日，Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP的律师Kenny Knox与国际商标协会（"INTA"）的成员就美国的惩罚性赔偿发表了讲话。

Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP的律师Jason Perilla和Kenny Knox在最近的一篇Law360文章中被引用，内容涉及知识产权法领域的远程工作和自动化。

律师Jason Perilla、Kenny Knox和Thomas Hildebrandt宣布成立Perilla Knox & Hildebrandt LLP。

Unless the parties agree otherwise, service of a CBM petition may be by USPS Priority Mail Express or “by means at least as fast and reliable” as Priority Mail Express. 37 C.F.R. § 42.205(b). Other AIA Trial rules regarding the service of documents apply the same standard.

The Federal Circuit held in FanDuel, Inc. v. Interactive Games LLC that the PTAB did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act when it found that the Petitioner failed to prove a claim obvious based on arguments the Patent Owner had not previously raised.

The USPTO has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with three proposed amendments to the AIA trial rules. The Office is proposing to amend 37 C.F.R. §§  42.108(a) and 42.208(a) to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu holding that the former practice of partial institutions was improper.

The Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel has been hard at work designating several decisions as precedential. According to the Board’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), the Precedential Opinion Panel issues a precedential decision only for issues of exceptional importance involving policy or procedure. A precedential decision is binding Board authority in matters involving similar facts or issues.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has the discretion to deny an IPR petition if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments” were presented during prosecution or in another proceeding. As discussed in an earlier post, the Board may weigh several factors when determining whether to exercise its discretion and deny an IPR petition under § 325(d).