Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal
GPTKB entity
Statements (61)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instanceOf |
legal case
|
| gptkbp:appeal |
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
|
| gptkbp:applicationNumber |
2015-1177
|
| gptkbp:caseOutcome |
Reversed and remanded.
The court ruled on the burden of proof. The ruling affected future patent challenges. |
| gptkbp:caseTypes |
Appeal
|
| gptkbp:citedBy |
subsequent patent cases.
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit
|
| gptkbp:decidedBy |
October 4, 2017
|
| gptkbp:hasLegalEvent |
Impact on future patent office procedures.
Relevant for patent attorneys. |
| gptkbp:hasLegalStatus |
Analyzed the impact on patent litigation.
Discussed the implications for patent holders. |
| gptkbp:historicalEvent |
Involved a patent for a pool cleaner.
|
| gptkbp:homeGround |
Aqua_Products_challenged_a_patent's_validity.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Patent_Office_procedures.
|
| gptkbp:involved |
gptkb:Aqua_Products,_Inc.
gptkb:Michelle_K._Lee |
| gptkbp:judges |
gptkb:Judge_Taranto
gptkb:Judge_Moore gptkb:Judge_O'Malley |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States
|
| gptkbp:legalStatus |
Patent law
Affected patent litigation strategies. Burden of proof in patent validity. Michelle_K._Lee_was_represented_by_the_U.S._Department_of_Justice. Clarified_the_role_of_the_Patent_Trial_and_Appeal_Board. Aqua_Products,_Inc._was_represented_by_Fish_&_Richardson. |
| gptkbp:notableEvent |
America Invents Act.
|
| gptkbp:notableFeature |
851 F.3d 1355.
Examined the implications of inter partes review. Involved issues of patent validity. Relevant to patent law practitioners. Set a precedent for future patent reviews. Judgment_favored_Aqua_Products. Aqua_Products_challenged_the_Patent_Office's_decision. |
| gptkbp:outcome |
The_Federal_Circuit_ruled_on_the_burden_of_proof_in_inter_partes_review.
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
The case clarified the standard of proof for patentability.
|
| gptkbp:relatedPatent |
Impacts how patents are challenged.
Part of ongoing patent reform discussions. Part of the evolution of patent law. Relevant to ongoing patent law debates. Cuozzo_Speed_Technologies,_LLC_v._Lee. SAS_Institute_Inc._v._Iancu. |
| gptkbp:relatedTo |
inter partes review
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Influenced future patent litigation.
|
| gptkbp:team |
Analyzed the implications for patent holders.
Clarified the burden of proof in patent cases. Established principles for inter partes review. Impact on future patent litigation. Implications for patent validity challenges. Influenced the interpretation of patent law. Part of the evolving patent law landscape. Part of the legal framework for patent reviews. Set a new standard for patent challenges. Significant for patent law evolution. Significant for patent validity standards. The ruling clarified the review process. Discussed_the_role_of_the_Patent_Office. |