Amol Parikh
Subscribe to Amol Parikh's PostsAmol Parikh concentrates his practice on intellectual property litigation, counseling and procurement. He draws on his trial and litigation experience in combination with his engineering training to quickly identify intellectual property issues and develop creative strategies to address them. Amol’s work on behalf of clients has earned him recognition in many industry publications. Most recently, Amol was recognized in February 2019 with the International Law Office’s “2019 Client Choice Award” for Intellectual Property in Illinois. The award recognizes “excellent client care” and the “ability to add real value to clients’ business above and beyond the other players in the market,” and winners may only be nominated by corporate counsel. Read Amol Parikh's full bio.
USPTO introduces voluntary search disclosure declarations in Board proceedings
By Amol Parikh on Dec 4, 2025
Posted In Patents
The Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum announcing a new initiative aimed at improving examination quality and transparency in Patent Trial & Appeal Board proceedings. Effective immediately, petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings may submit a search disclosure declaration (SDD) that explains in detail:...
Continue Reading
Spooky silence: USPTO Director summarily denies 13 IPR petitions
By Amol Parikh on Nov 6, 2025
Posted In Patents
On October 31, 2025, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) in 13 separate proceedings. The notice listed only the docket numbers of the affected IPRs and offered no substantive explanation for the denials, stating simply: “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §...
Continue Reading
Failure to reassess subject matter eligibility after similar claims invalidated justifies attorneys’ fees
By Amol Parikh on Oct 30, 2025
Posted In Patents
Following a dismissal on the pleadings, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 after concluding that the asserted patent was objectively invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101. Linfo, LLC v. Aero Global, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-2952 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15,...
Continue Reading
USPTO Director to decide AIA petitions
By Amol Parikh on Oct 23, 2025
Posted In America Invents Act, Patents
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum on October 17, 2025, titled “Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings,” providing updated guidance to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board regarding the standards and procedures for instituting trial proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review...
Continue Reading
On repeat: Separate accrual rule doesn’t apply to continuing harm from infringing act
By Amol Parikh on Aug 28, 2025
Posted In Copyrights
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a copyright lawsuit as time barred, finding that the separate accrual rule does not apply to continuing harm from a single infringing act. Foss v. Eastern States Exposition, Case No. 24-1360 (1st Cir. Aug. 21, 2025) (Montecalvo, Kayatta, Aframe, JJ.)...
Continue Reading
Supreme Court to consider whether ISPs can be liable for contributory copyright infringement
By Amol Parikh on Jul 10, 2025
Posted In Cert Alert
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review whether an internet service provider (ISP) can be liable for copyright infringement for providing an internet connection that leads to piracy. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Case No. 24-171 (Supr. Ct. June 30, 2025) (certiorari granted). The questions presented are: Whether the...
Continue Reading
Looks like estoppel, sounds like estoppel … but it’s just director discretion
By Amol Parikh on Jun 26, 2025
Posted In Patents
The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in unfair dealings by challenging a patent on which its employees were the inventors. Tessell, Inc. v. Nutanix, Inc., IPR2025-00322 (PTAB...
Continue Reading
Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel
By Amol Parikh on May 15, 2025
Posted In Patents
In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground that could not have been raised during the IPR proceeding, such as that...
Continue Reading
New Administration, Same Patent Reform Bill
By Amol Parikh on May 8, 2025
Posted In Patents
A bipartisan group of senators and congressional representatives reintroduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which aims to reform the law of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. PERA seeks to address the challenges posed by recent Supreme Court decisions and restore clarity and predictability in the US patent system. PERA preserves the existing categories...
Continue Reading
PTO Accelerates Patent Issuance Timeline
By Amol Parikh on Apr 24, 2025
Posted In Patents
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced that it has shortened the time between the issue notification and the issue date for patents. Historically, the time between these two events averaged about three weeks. Seeking to provide earlier protection for inventions, the PTO intends to reduce that time to about two weeks. The PTO...
Continue Reading
