No 102(e) Prior Art in a CBMR

Posted on by

In Trulia, Inc, v. Zillow, Inc., CBM2013-00056, Paper 19 (April 10, 2014), it was called to the Board’s attention that the prior art relied upon in the petition was 102(e) which is not proper prior art for a covered business method review.  The petitioner pointed out that each reference had a corresponding publication that was 102(b) prior art, but the Board found that it could not change the grounds on which the trial was instituted, and intead suggested that the petitioner file an second petiton, replacing the 102(e) art with the 102(b) art, and move to join the proceedings.  While the time for joinder passed the day of the Board’s order, the Board said it would waive the joinder deadline if both parties were amenable,

 

This entry was posted in Covered Business Methods by Bryan Wheelock. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bryan Wheelock

Education J.D., Washington University in St. Louis B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Bryan Wheelock's practice includes preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications and drafting of intellectual property agreements, including non-compete agreements. He has brought and defended lawsuits in federal and state courts relating to intellectual property and has participated in seizures of counterfeit and infringing goods. Bryan prepares and prosecutes U.S. and foreign patent applications for medical devices, mechanical and electromechanical devices, manufacturing machinery and processes, metal alloys and other materials. He also does a substantial amount of patentability searching, trademark availability searching and patent and trademark infringement studies. In addition to his practice at Harness Dickey, Bryan is an Adjunct Professor at Washington University School of Law and Washington University School of Engineering.