Petitioner Given A Chance to Respond to Bar Issues Raised in Preliminary Response

In Johnson Health Tech Co. Ltd. v. ICON Health & Fitness, IPR2014-01242, Paper 12 (November 28, 2014), the Board granted petitioner a ten page reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response that argued that the petition was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).


This entry was posted in Inter Partes Review and tagged 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.