small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
  1. Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Blog

Board Institutes Over Patent Owner Particularity and Word Count Objections

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page
  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

Blog

Board Institutes Over Patent Owner Particularity and Word Count Objections

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

1 Min Read

Authors

Louis L. CampbellEimeric Reig-PlessisMike RueckheimRobert N. KangSharon Lin McIntoshTathagata D. ("TD") Goswami

Related Locations

Chicago
San Francisco
Silicon Valley
Washington, DC

Related Topics

Word Count
Particularity
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Related Capabilities

Intellectual Property
Patent Litigation

Related Regions

North America

October 13, 2021

Attends Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Paul Hartmann AG, IPR2020-01480, Paper 13 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2021).

Before: Scanlon, Jung, Powell.

The Board instituted trial over patent owner’s arguments that the petition was procedurally improper. Patent Owner had advanced several arguments that the petition failed to comply with the particularity and word count requirements. The patent owner alleged that the petition’s use of a claim listing and subsequent use of shorthand claims limitation reference (like “limitation 1[p]”) rather than repeating the text of the claims in subheadings throughout the petition violated the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312. The patent owner further alleged that the use of cross-references to other sections of the petition also violated the particularity requirement. The patent owner also argued that the use of the shorthand claim limitation references, running § and ¶ symbols together with the referenced section or paragraph numerals, and dropping “a” or “the” before “POSITA” were violations of the word count limitation. The Board, without any real discussion, held that “none of the issues identified by Patent Owner rises to a level that renders the Petition as a whole deficient, or otherwise warrants denying institution.”

View the blog here.

Sign up to receive emails with links to new posts by clicking here.

Related Professionals

Related Professionals

Louis L. Campbell

Eimeric Reig-Plessis

Mike Rueckheim

Robert N. Kang

Sharon Lin McIntosh

Tathagata D. ("TD") Goswami

Louis L. Campbell

Eimeric Reig-Plessis

Mike Rueckheim

Robert N. Kang

Sharon Lin McIntosh

Tathagata D. ("TD") Goswami

This entry has been created for information and planning purposes. It is not intended to be, nor should it be substituted for, legal advice, which turns on specific facts.

Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising